constitutional law (just compensation cases)

8/11/2019 Constitutional law (Just Compensation Cases)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/constitutional-law-just-compensation-cases 1/75

ESLABAN VS. ONORIO ﾧ

Facts: Clarita Vda. De Onorio is the owner of the land in Baranga !. Ro"as# Sto. Nino#

So$th Cota%ato. S$ch land is the s$%&ect for the constr$ction of an irrigation canal of the

National IrrigationAd'inistration (NIA). !r. Santiago Esla%an *r. is the +ro&ect'anagerof NIA. ,he +arties agreed to the constr$ction of the canal +ro-ided that the

go-ern'ent will +a for the area that has %een taen. A right/of/wa agree'ent was

entered into % the +arties in which res+ondent was +aid the a'o$nt of 01# 234.44 as

right of wa da'ages. S$%se5$entl# res+ondent e"ec$ted an Affida-it of 6ai-er of

Rights and Fees which wai-es her rights for the da'age to the cro+s d$e to constr$ction

of the right of wa. After which# res+ondent de'ands that +etitioner +a 0222# 788.99 for

taing her +ro+ert %$t the +etitioner ref$sed. 0etitioner states that the go-ern'ent had

not consented to %e s$ed and that the res+ondent is not entitled for co'+ensation %

-irt$e of the ho'estead +atent $nder CA no. 212. ,he R,C held that the NIA sho$ld +ares+ondent the a'o$nt of 024# 92.;4 as &$st co'+ensation for the 71#;;4 s5 'eters that

ha-e %een $sed for the constr$ction of the canal. ,he Co$rt of A++eals also affir'ed the

decision of the R,C.

Iss$e: 6hether or Not the CA erred in affir'ing the decision of the R,C.

<eld: ,he CA is correct in affir'ing the decision of the R,C %$t 'odifications shall %e'ade regarding the -al$e of the &$stco'+ensation. ,he following are the +oints to %e

considered in arri-ing in this decision.

First# R$le +ar 9 of the R$le of Ci-il 0roced$re +ro-ides that the certification against

for$' sho++ing sho$ld onl %e e"ec$ted % the+laintiff or the +rinci+al. ,he +etition for

re-iew was filed % !r. Esla%an &r. while the -erification or certification were signed %

!r. Cesar =on>ales# an ad'inistrator of the agenc. Neither of the two has the a$thorit

to sign s$ch certificate for the are not the +laintiffor +rinci+al. S$ch case is a s$fficient

gro$nd for dis'issing this +etition.

Second# 0D NO. 2978 +ro-ides that the owner is re5$ired to recogni>e in fa-or of the

go-ern'ent the ease'ent of a ?+$%lic highwa# wa# +ri-ate wa esta%lished % law# or

an go-ern'ent canal where the certificate of title does not state that the %o$ndaries

thereof ha-e %een +re/deter'ined. In the case at %ar# the irrigation canal was constr$cted

on Oct 2832 after the +ro+ert had %een registered in !a of 28;. In this case# +rior

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/eslaban-vs-onorio-360-scra-230-gr-no.html

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/eslaban-vs-onorio-360-scra-230-gr-no.html



e"+ro+riation +roceedings '$st %e filed and &$st co'+ensation shall %e +aid to the owner

%efore the land co$ld %e taen for +$%lic $se.

,hird# In this case# &$st co'+ensation is defined as not onl the correct a'o$nt to %e +aid

%$t the reasona%le ti'e for the =o-ern'ent to +a the owner. ,he CA erred in this +oint % stating that the 'aret -al$e (&$st co'+ensation) of the land is deter'ined in the filing

of the co'+laint in 2882.,he deter'ination of s$ch -al$e sho$ld %e fro' the ti'e of its

taing % the NIA in 2832.

Lastl# the +etitioner cannot arg$e that the Affida-it of wai-er of rights and fees e"ec$ted

% the res+ondent +ertains to the +a'ent of the -al$e of the land therefore e"e'+ting

NIA to +a the -al$e of the land taen. S$ch wai-er +ertains onl to the cro+s and

i'+ro-e'ents that were da'age d$e to the constr$ction of the right/of/wa not the -al$e

of the land.

6herefore# decision of CA affir'ed with 'odification regarding the &$st co'+ensation in

the a'o$nt of 02;# 41.;2 +er hectare.

RE0@BLIC OF ,<E 0<ILI00INES (!inistr of Ed$cation and C$lt$re)# +etitioner#

-s.

IN,ER!EDIA,E A00ELLA,E CO@R, and A!ERE ELEC,RONICS# 0<ILS.COR0ORA,ION# res+ondents.

,he go-ern'ent# in the e"ercise of its +ower of e'inent do'ain# e"+ro+riated +ro+ert

owned % A'ere" Electronics# 0hils. Cor+oration. ,he a'o$nt of &$st co'+ensation for s$ch +ro+ert is now the s$%&ect of this +etition for re-iew on certiorari.

,he +ro+ert in-ol-ed consists of fo$r (1) +arcels of land with a total area of 8#;94 s5$are

'eters located at No. 7484 Dr. !an$el L. Carreon Street# !anila# a short walingdistance fro' <erran (now 0edro =il) Street. Its +re-io$s owner# A-egon Inc.# offered it

for sale to the Cit School Board of !anila on *$l 72# 28 at 07#44#444. ,he school

%oard was willing to %$ at 02#344#444 %$t the then !aor of !anila inter-ened and-ol$nteered to negotiate with A-egon Inc. for a %etter +rice.

Inas'$ch as the alleged negotiation did not 'ateriali>e# on *$ne # 281# A-egon Inc.

sold the +ro+ert and its i'+ro-e'ents to A'ere" Electronics# 0hils. Cor+oration(A'ere" for %re-it) for 02#344#444. ,hereafter# ,ransfer Certificates of ,itle Nos.

22992# 22997# 2299 and 22991 were iss$ed in fa-or of A'ere".

On A$g$st 78# 289# the Solicitor =eneral filed for the De+art'ent of Ed$cation and

C$lt$re (DEC) a co'+laint against A'ere" for the e"+ro+riation of said +ro+ert %eforethe Co$rt of First Instance of !anila (Ci-il Case No. 88284). ,he co'+laint stated that

the +ro+ert was needed % the go-ern'ent as a +er'anent site for the !an$el de la

F$ente <igh School (later rena'ed Don !ariano !arcos !e'orial <igh School) that



the fair 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert had %een declared % A'ere" as 07#19#444# and

that the assessor had deter'ined its 'aret -al$e as 07#17#417 and assessed it for

ta"ation +$r+oses in the a'o$nt of 02#4#14. 2In a 'otion +raing that the +laintiff %e a$thori>ed to tae i''ediate +ossession of the

+ro+ert# the then Acting Solicitor =eneral <$go E. =$tierre># *r.# in-oing 0residential

Decree No. 17# infor'ed the co$rt that said assessed -al$e of the +ro+ert for ta"ation +$r+oses had %een de+osited with the 0hili++ine National Ban(0NB) in Escolta# !anila

on Se+te'%er 4# 289.

Conse5$entl# on Octo%er 8# 289# the co$rt iss$ed an order directing the sheriff to +lacethe +laintiff in +ossession of the +ro+ert. ,he +laintiff too act$al +ossession thereof on

Octo%er 2# 289.

A'ere" filed a 'otion to dis'iss the co'+laint stating that while it was not contesting

the 'erits of the co'+laint# the sa'e failed to categoricall state the a'o$nt of &$stco'+ensation for the +ro+ert. It therefore +raed that in consonance with 0.D. No. 81#

the &$st co'+ensation %e fi"ed at 07#17#417# the 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert

deter'ined % the assessor which was lower than A'ere"s own declaration.

,he 'otion to dis'iss was o++osed % the +laintiff reasoning that while indeed the'aret -al$e as deter'ined % the assessor was lower than that declared % A'ere"# the

+laintiff intended to +resent e-idence of a '$ch lower 'aret -al$e.Alleging that its 'otion to dis'iss 'erel so$ght a clarification on the &$st co'+ensation

for the +ro+ert# A'ere" filed a 'otion to withdraw the +laintiffs de+osit of 02#4#14

with the 0NB witho$t +re&$dice to its entitle'ent to the a'o$nt of 02#273#97# the %alance of the &$st co'+ensation of 07#17#417 insisted $+on. ,he +laintiff inter+osed no

o%&ection to the 'otion +ro-ided that an order of conde'nation %e iss$ed % the co$rt

and that the +laintiff %e allowed to +resent its e-idence on the 'atter of &$st

co'+ensation.On Dece'%er # 289# the lower co$rt iss$ed an order -esting the +laintiff with the

lawf$l light to tae the +ro+ert $+on +a'ent of &$st co'+ensation as +ro-ided % law.

On Dece'%er 28# 289# after the +arties had s$%'itted the na'es of their res+ecti-ereco''endees to the a++raisal co''ittee# the lower co$rt a++ointed Att. Narciso 0ea#

A$relio V. A5$ino and Att. <iginio S$nico as co''issioners.

,hereafter# the lower co$rt ordered A'ere" to s$%'it an a$dited financial state'ent onthe ac5$isition cost of the +ro+ert incl$ding e"+enses for its i'+ro-e'ent. A'ere" was

also allowed % the co$rt# after it had filed a second 'otion therefor# to withdraw the

02#4#14 de+osit with the 0NB.

On !arch 27# 28;# the +laintiff filed a 'otion for lea-e of co$rt to a'end its co'+laintstating that after it had filed the sa'e# 0.D. No. 1;1 7 was a'ended % 0.D. No. 81 that

Section 87 of said Code# as a'ended# +ro-ided that when +ri-ate +ro+ert is ac5$ired for

+$%lic $se# its &$st co'+ensation shall not e"ceed the 'aret -al$e declared % theowner or ad'inistrator or anone ha-ing legal interest in the +ro+ert# or s$ch 'aret

-al$e as deter'ined % the assessor# whiche-er is lower and that the a'ended co'+laint

wo$ld state that the fair 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert co$ld not %e in e"cess of 02#344#444# the a'o$nt for which defendants +redecessor/in/interest had offered to sell

said +ro+erties to the Di-ision of 0$%lic Schools of !anila and which a'o$nt was also

the +$rchase +rice +aid % A'ere" to A-egon Inc. In d$e co$rse# +laintiff filed an

a'ended co'+laint.



A'ere"# howe-er# o++osed the 'otion for lea-e to a'end the co'+laint contending that

the +laintiff was insisting on a -al$ation gi-en % neither the owner nor the assessor as

'andated % 0.D. No. 81 %$t % another +erson in A$g$st 28 when the +eso -al$e was'$ch higher.

,he lower co$rt denied the 'otion to a'end the co'+laint %$t after the +laintiff had

filed a 'otion for reconsideration# the lower co$rt ad'itted the a'ended co'+laint onA+ril 7# 28;. In the 'eanti'e# A'ere" s$%'itted to the co$rt a$dited financial

state'ents consisting of an acco$nt stating that the cost of its land and %$ildings was

07#24#18.13# and another acco$nt stating that it inc$rred total e"+enses of 0294#98 for their 'aintenance. ,hese state'ents ielded the a'o$nt of 07#793#423.13 as the total

-al$e of the +ro+ert.

,he co''issioners cond$cted an oc$lar ins+ection and hearing on the -al$e of the

+ro+ert. On Octo%er 23# 28;# the +laintiff filed a 'otion seeing the dis5$alification of Engineer A$relio B. A5$ino as co''issioner on the gro$nd that he co$ld not %e e"+ected

to %e $n%iased inas'$ch as in the three a++raisal re+orts s$%'itted % A'ere"# A5$ino

had indicated as fair 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert a'o$nts '$ch 'ore than the +laintiffs

fair 'aret -al$e deter'ination of 02#344#444. Said a++raisal re+orts were 'ade %A'+il Realt and A++raisal Co.# Inc. with A5$ino signing thereon as real estate a++raiser.

One re+ort# dated Fe%r$ar 29# 281 and s$%'itted to Co''onwealth Ins$ranceCo'+an indicated 07#244#444 as the fair 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert. 1 ,wo other

re+orts were 'ade at the %ehest of A'ere" with one# dated No-e'%er 29# 281# fi"ing

the fair 'aret -al$e at 07#44#444 9# and the other# dated *$ne 9# 289# with 07#144#444as the fair 'aret -al$e. ;

A'ere" o++osed the 'otion to dis5$alif A5$ino as co''issioner# and the co$rt# in its

order of No-e'%er 9# 28;# denied it. <ence# on *an$ar 71# 28# the co''issioners

s$%'itted their a++raisal re+ort finding that the fair 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert was07#;#144. ,he co''issioners# howe-er added:

@nder the +ro-ision of 0residential Decree No. 1;1# as a'ended % 0residential Decree

No. 81# a%o-e5$oted# we co$ld ha-e safel ado+ted the -al$ation of the Cit Assessor inthe s$' of 07#17#417.44# this %eing lower than that declared % the owner in the s$' of

07#19#444.44# altho$gh % act$al a++raisal of the $ndersigned Co''issioners the

+ro+ert co$ld co''and a fair 'aret -al$e of 07#;#144.44 as of the date of o$r oc$lar ins+ection.

Considering# howe-er# that according to the a$dited state'ent s$%'itted % defendant#

the ac5$isition costs and other legal e"+enses inc$rred on the s$%&ect +ro+ert %

A!ERE# the grand total of 07#793#423.9# are (sic) lower than the findings of the$ndersigned Co''issioners# the e"+lanation %eing the fact that the +rice of the sale was a

real %argain +ossi%l d$e to dire necessities of the seller A-egon# it is res+ectf$ll

s$%'itted that the said s$' of 07#793#423.9 %e ado+ted for +$r+oses of deter'ining &$stco'+ensation +aa%le to defendant A!ERE# which s$' does not e"ceed# %$t is e-en

lower than# the fair 'aret -al$e was deter'ined % the Cit Assessor and as declared %

said defendant. Both +arties o%&ected to the re+ort of the co''issioners. ,he +laintiff contended that the

co''issioners concl$sion that the fair 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert was 07#;#144 was

$ns$++orted % e-idence and that their reco''ended &$st co'+ensation of

07#793#423.9 was e"cessi-e. It reiterated its stand that the &$st co'+ensation sho$ld



onl %e 02#344#444 it %eing the +rice had the sale %etween the cit school %oard and

A-egon Inc. 'ateriali>ed and also the act$al +rice of the sale %etween A-egon Inc. and

A'ere". On the other hand# A'ere" a-erred that the reco''ended &$st co'+ensationwas $n&$stified in -iew of the co''issioners finding that the fair 'aret -al$e of the

+ro+ert was 07#;#144.

On !arch 29# 28# the lower co$rt 3 rendered a decision %ased on the followingfindings:

,he co$rt %elie-es that the findings of the co''issioners are s$++orted % the e-idence

add$ced d$ring the hearings and that their reco''endation is reasona%le. ,he +ro+ertwas original owned % A-egon Inc. and was assessed at 02#48#4.44 % the Cit of

!anila for the ear 281 (E"h. A/1). A-egon Inc. offered to sell it to the Cit School

Board on *$l 72# 28 at 07#44#444.44 %$t it acce+ted the co$nter/offer of 02#344#444.

,he negotiations# howe-er# fell thro$gh when the cit failed to act (E"hs. C# C/2# C/7# C/ and C/1). ,he +ro+ert was a++raised on Fe%r$ar 29# 281 at 07#244#444.44 at the

Instance of Co''onwealth Ins$rance Co'+an# an affiliate of 6arner# Barnes G Co.#

Inc. (E"h. =). ,he defendant co'+an introd$ced i'+ro-e'ents on the +ro+ert in the

'iddle +art of 281 worth 07;4#;84.94 (E"hs. 1# 1/A to 1/* 22# 2# 21 to 28). After thereno-ation# the +ro+ert was again a++raised at the instance of the defendant at

07#44#444.44 on No-e'%er 29# 281 (E"h. 7). D$e to the world/wide recession# therefollowed a sl$'+ in the de'and for electronic +rod$cts. On *$ne 1# 289# the ,raders

Co''odities Cor+oration offered to %$ the +ro+ert at 07#94#444.44 with a de+osit of

094#444.44 as earnest 'one. ,he offer was for'all 'ade % the law fir' Salonga#Ordoe># Ha+# Africano and Associates (E"ch. ;). ,he offer was acce+ted on *$ne 8# 289

(E"hs. and 3). ,he sale was not cons$''ated# howe-er# when the go-ern'ent notified

the defendant in a conference held in !alacanang on *$ne 29# 289 that it wanted to %$

the +ro+ert for the $se of the !an$el de la F$ente <igh School (E"h. 8). Beca$se of thefail$re of the +arties to agree on the +rice and other conditions of the +$rchase# the

go-ern'ent filed this action on A$g$st 7# 289.

It is a++arent that the co''issioners were infl$enced % the fact that the cit assessorsfi"ed the 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert at 07#17#417.44 for the ear 289 +$rs$ant to

0residential Decree No. 1;1 and that there was a +erfected contract to %$ it at

07#94#444.44. No e-idence was +resented nor e-en an allegation 'ade# to show that thego-ern'ent -al$ation is fra$d$lent or erroneo$s. It '$st therefore %e reg$lar (R$le 22#

sec. ') and in -iew of the reliance of the 0residential Decree $+on it as a standard to %e

followed % the co$rts in arri-ing at the &$st co'+ensation of the +ro+ert when it is

ac5$ired % the go-ern'ent# it has great e-identiar weight. ,he offer to %$ at07#94#444.44 was 'ade % one of the 'ost re+$ta%le law fir's in the co$ntr. It is not

liel that it wo$ld ha-e lent itself to an fra$d$lent de-ice or sche'e to inflate the -al$e

of the +ro+ert. Co''issioner 0ea is a renowned a$thorit on land registration# and has %een a realtor for 'an ears. Att. <iginio S$nico is the chief of the Land !anage'ent

Di-ision# B$rea$ of Lands# who was reco''ended % the +laintiff. Both are well/nown

for their +ro%a%ilit Altho$gh it a++ears that !r. A5$ino# the co''issioner reco''ended % the defendant# had occasion in the +ast to +artici+ate in transactions

in-ol-ing the sa'e +ro+ert# the co$rt %elie-es that the conc$rrence of the other

co''issioners is a safe g$arant of the correctness of their a++raisal and

reco''endation.



Accordingl# the dis+ositi-e +ortion of the decision reads as follows:

6<EREFORE# &$dg'ent is here% rendered f$nding the a'o$nt of 07#793.423.9 as &$st

co'+ensation for the +ro+ert of the defendant and declaring the +laintiff entitled to +ossess and a++ro"i'ate it to the +$%lic $se alleged in the co'+laint and to retain it $+on

+a'ent of the said a'o$nt# after ded$cting the a'o$nt of 02#4#14.44# with legal

interest fro' Octo%er 2# 289 when the +laintiff was +laced in +ossession of the real +ro+ert# and $+on +a'ent to each of the co''issioners of the s$' of 09.44 for their

attendance d$ring the hearings held on *an$ar 7# Fe%r$ar 2;# !a 22# *$l 7#

Se+te'%er 2# Octo%er 27 and Dece'%er 24# 28;# +l$s 0944.44 each for the +re+arationof the re+ort# and the costs.

,he +laintiff ele-ated the case to the then Inter'ediate A++ellate Co$rt (IAC) for re-iew.

On Octo%er 78# 2831# it affir'ed the a++ealed decision with the 'odification that the +laintiff Re+$%lic of the 0hili++ines %e e"e'+ted fro' the +a'ent of the

co''issioners fees# the 0944.44 granted each of the' for the +re+aration of the re+ort

and the costs.

Its 'otion for the reconsideration of said decision ha-ing %een denied# +etitioner filed theinstant +etition s$%'itting the following iss$es for resol$tion:

2. 6hether or not res+ondent Co$rt erred in not dis5$alifing Co''issioner A$relio B.A5$ino fro' 'e'%ershi+ in the Co''ittee of A++raisal.

7. 6hether or not res+ondent Co$rt erred in not totall disregarding the a$dited state'ent

% the defendant# which is hearsa in nat$re and was not for'all offered in e-idence.. 6hether or not res+ondent Co$rt erred in totall disregarding +etitioners e-idence

showing that the award of &$st co'+ensation sho$ld %e onl 02#344#444.44 and not

07#793.423.9 as awarded % said res+ondent Co$rt.

,he iss$e of the dis5$alification of A5$ino as co''issioner deser-es scant attention.@nder Section 3# R$le ; of the R$les of Co$rt# the co$rt 'a tae the following actions

on the re+ort s$%'itted % co''issioners: it 'a acce+t the re+ort and render &$dg'ent

in accordance therewith or for ca$se shown# it 'a reco''it the sa'e to theco''issioners for f$rther re+ort of facts# or it 'a set aside the re+ort and a++oint new

co''issioners# or it 'a acce+t the re+ort in +art and re&ect it in +art . . . . In other

words# the re+ort of the co''issioners is 'erel ad-isor and reco''endator incharacter as far as the co$rt is concerned. 8

<ence# it hardl 'atters that one of the three co''issioners had a +reconcei-ed and

%iased -al$ation of the conde'ned +ro+ert. ,he -eracit or e"actit$de of the esti'atearri-ed at % the co''issioners 'a not %e ad-ersel affected there%. In fact# the re+ort

of onl two co''issioners 'a s$ffice if the third co''issioner dissents fro' the

for'ers -al$ation. 24 Indeed# the +artici+ation of an allegedl %iased co''issioner 'anot res$lt in the total disregard of an a++raisal re+ort in the a%sence of +roof that the two

other co''issioners were $nd$l infl$enced % their allegedl +artial colleag$e.

,he deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation for a conde'ned +ro+ert is %asicall a &$dicialf$nction. As the co$rt is not %o$nd % the co''issioners re+ort# it 'a 'ae s$ch order

or render s$ch &$dg'ent as shall sec$re to the +laintiff the +ro+ert essential to the

e"ercise of its right of conde'nation# and to the defendant &$st co'+ensation for the

+ro+ert e"+ro+riated. For that 'atter# this Co$rt 'a e-en s$%stit$te its own esti'ate of



the -al$e as gathered fro' the record. 22 <ence# altho$gh the deter'ination of &$st

co'+ensation a++ears to %e a fact$al 'atter which is ordinaril o$tside the a'%it of its

&$risdiction# this Co$rt 'a dist$r% the lower co$rts fact$al finding on a++eal when thereis clear error or gra-e a%$se of discretion. 27

6e hold that the co$rts %elow 'ade an erroneo$s deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation inthis case.

In the first +lace# the &$st co'+ensation +rescri%ed herein is %ased on the co''issioners

reco''endation which in t$rn is fo$nded on the a$dited state'ents of A'ere" that the +ro+ert is worth 07#793#423.9. As earlier +ointed o$t# while the co$rt 'a acce+t the

co''issioners re+ort and render &$dg'ent in accordance therewith# it 'a not do so

witho$t considering whether the re+ort is s$++orted % e-idence. ,he co$rt is also d$t/

%o$nd to deter'ine whether the co''issioners had discharged the tr$st re+osed in the'according to well/esta%lished r$les and for'ed their &$dg'ent $+on correct legal

+rinci+les for the are not s$++osed to act ad li%it$' . 2

A'ere"s a$dited state'ent on the ac5$isition cost# cost of +ainting and 'a&or re+airs#ta"es# and ins$rance +re'i$'s which totals 07#24#18.13# contains the following

certification:6e ha-e checed the details of the transactions indicated in the foregoing sched$le of

Land and B$ilding Acco$nt as at *an$ar 2# 28; with the %oos and records of A'ere"

Electronics (0hili++ines) Cor+oration which were +resented to $s for e"a'ination andha-e fo$nd the details to %e in accordance therewith. 6e ha-e not 'ade an a$dit of the

%oos of acco$nts of A'ere" Electronics (0hili++ines) Cor+oration.

A'ere"s other a$dited state'ent on the 'aintenance e"+enses of the +ro+ert wherein

it allegedl inc$rred the a'o$nt of 0294#98.48 contains a si'ilar certification % thesa'e acco$nting fir' s+ecificall stating that the a$ditor did not 'ae an a$dit of the

%oos of acco$nts of A'ere". 29

It is clear fro' these certifications that the acco$nting fir' which iss$ed the' 'erelco'+ared the fig$res in the sched$les or a$dited state'ents with those of the records

and %oos of acco$nts of A'ere". As no in-estigation was 'ade as to the -eracit of the

fig$res in the acco$nt# there was no a$dit in the real sense of the ter'. ,o a$dit is toe"a'ine an acco$nt# co'+are it with the -o$chers# ad&$st the sa'e# and to state the

%alance# % +ersons legall a$thori>ed for the +$r+ose. 2; 6hile the word a$dit is

so'eti'es restricted to a 'ere 'athe'atical +rocess# it generall incl$des in-estigation#

the weighing of e-idence# and deciding whether ite's sho$ld or sho$ld not %e incl$ded inthe acco$nt . 2 A$dit in-ol-es the e"ercise of discretion it is a 5$asi/&$dicial f$nction.

23 ,he acc$rac of the a$dited state'ents herein is therefore s$s+ect.

Besides the fact that the +etitioner was not f$rnished a co+ of the a$dited state'entswhich were also not introd$ced in e-idence# Enri5$e 0. Este%an# -ice/+resident and

treas$rer of A'ere"# and e-en a re+resentati-e of the acco$nting fir'# were liewise not

+resented d$ring the trial there% de+ri-ing +etitioner herein of the o++ort$nit to cross/e"a'ine the'. It wo$ld therefore %e $nfair to the +etitioner to hold it %o$nd % the

a$dited state'ents of A'ere" which 'a ha-e %een +re'ised on false or 'istaen

data. 28

,his Co$rt ha-ing declared as $nconstit$tional the 'ode of fi"ing &$st co'+ensation



$nder 0.D. No. 81 74 &$st co'+ensation sho$ld %e deter'ined either at the ti'e of the

act$al taing of the go-ern'ent or at the ti'e of the &$dg'ent of the co$rt# whiche-er

co'es first. 72In this case# the iss$ance of the conde'nation order and the act$al taing of the +ro+ert

%oth occ$rred in Octo%er# 289. Accordingl# the a++raisal 'ade % A'+il Realt and

A++raisal Co.# Inc. on *$ne 9# 289# which date is nearest to that of the act$al taing of the +ro+ert# sho$ld %e the %asis for the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation the record

%eing %ereft of an indications of ano'al a++ertaining thereto. It sho$ld %e added that

6enceslao A'+il# the +resident of said a++raisal fir'# testified at the trial and therefore +etitioner had the o++ort$nit to confront hi' and to 5$estion his re+ort. ,he

reasona%leness of the *$ne 9#289 a++raisal fi"ing at 07#144#444 the fair 'aret -al$e of

the +ro+ert# is %olstered % the fact that on *$ne 1# 289# ,raders Co''odities

Cor+oration# thro$gh its lawer# Sedfre A. Ordoe> offered to %$ the +ro+ert at07#94#444. 77 It '$st %e e'+hasi>ed# howe-er# that legal interest on the %alance of the

&$st co'+ensation of 07#144#444 after ded$cting the a'o$nt of 02#4#14 which had

%een deli-ered to A'ere"# sho$ld %e +aid % +etitioner fro' the ti'e the go-ern'ent

act$all too o-er the +ro+ert . 7!$ch as we reali>e the need of the go-ern'ent# $nder these tring ti'es# to get the %est

+ossi%le +rice for the e"+ro+riated +ro+ert considering the ceaseless and contin$ingnecessit for schools# we cannot agree with the +etitioner that the &$st co'+ensation for

the +ro+ert sho$ld %e the +rice it co''anded when it was first offered for sale to the

Cit School Board of !anila. 0etitioner failed to s$%stantiate its clai' that the +ro+ert isworth the lower a'o$nt of 02#344#444. In contrast# A'ere" s$%'itted e-idence

consisting of the aforesaid *$ne 9# 289 a++raisal re+ort which fi"ed the fair 'aret -al$e

of the +ro+ert at 07#144#444.

6<EREFORE# the &$st co'+ensation of the +ro+ert e"+ro+riated for the $se of the!an$el de la F$ente <igh School Don !ariano !arcos !e'orial <igh School) is here%

fi"ed at ,wo !illion Fo$r <$ndred ,ho$sand 0esos (07#144#444.44). After ded$cting the

a'o$nt of 02#4#14.44 therefro'# the +etitioner shall +a the %alance with legalinterest fro' Octo%er 2# 289.

SO ORDERED.

E0A VS. D@LAH ﾧ

Facts: ,he fo$r +arcels of land which are the s$%&ect of this case is where the !actan

E"+ort 0rocessing one A$thorit in Ce%$ (E0A) is to %e constr$cted. 0ri-ate

res+ondent San Antonio De-elo+'ent Cor+oration (San Antonio# for %re-it)# in which

these lands are registered $nder# clai'ed that the lands were e"+ro+riated to the

go-ern'ent witho$t the' reaching the agree'ent as to the co'+ensation. Res+ondent

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/epza-vs-dulay-148-scra-305-gr-no-l.html

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/epza-vs-dulay-148-scra-305-gr-no-l.html



*$dge D$la then iss$ed an order for the a++oint'ent of the co''issioners to deter'ine

the &$st co'+ensation. It was later fo$nd o$t that the +a'ent of the go-ern'ent to San

Antonio wo$ld %e 029 +er s5$are 'eter# which was o%&ected to % the latter contending

that $nder 0D 29# the %asis of &$st co'+ensation shall %e fair and according to the fair

'aret -al$e declared % the owner of the +ro+ert so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated# or % theassessor# whiche-er is lower. S$ch o%&ection and the s$%se5$ent !otion for

Reconsideration were denied and hearing was set for the rece+tion of the co''issionerJs

re+ort. E0A then filed this +etition for certiorari and 'anda'$s en&oining the

res+ondent fro' f$rther hearing the case.

Iss$e: 6hether or Not the e"cl$si-e and 'andator 'ode of deter'ining &$st

co'+ensation in 0D 29 is $nconstit$tional.

<eld: ,he S$+re'e Co$rt r$led that the 'ode of deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation in

0D 29 is $nconstit$tional.

,he 'ethod of ascertaining &$st co'+ensation constit$tes i'+er'issi%le encroach'ent to

&$dicial +rerogati-es. It tends to render the co$rts in$tile in a 'atter in which $nder the

Constit$tion is reser-ed to it for financial deter'ination. ,he -al$ation in the decree 'a

onl ser-e as g$iding +rinci+le or one of the factors in deter'ining &$st co'+ensation# %$t

it 'a not s$%stit$te the co$rtJs own &$dg'ent as to what a'o$nt sho$ld %e awarded and

how to arri-e at s$ch a'o$nt. ,he deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation is a &$dicial

f$nction. ,he e"ec$ti-e de+art'ent or the legislat$re 'a 'ae the initial deter'ination

%$t when a +art clai's a -iolation of the g$arantee in the Bill of Rights that the +ri-ate

+art 'a not %e taen for +$%lic $se witho$t &$st co'+ensation# no stat$te# decree# or

e"ec$ti-e order can 'andate that its own deter'ination shall +re-ail o-er the co$rtJs

findings. !$ch less can the co$rts %e +recl$ded fro' looing into the &$stness of the

decreed co'+ensation.

*OSE !A. ANSALDO# for hi'self and as attorne/in/fact of !aria Angela Ansaldo#

+etitioners



-s.

FRANCISCO S. ,AN,@ICO# *R.# Acting Chair'an# Co''ission on A$dit# and

BAL,AAR AK@INO# !inister of 0$%lic <ighwas# res+ondents.

,his e"+ro+riation case is 5$ite $ni5$e. ,wo lots of +ri-ate ownershi+ were taen % the

=o-ern'ent and $sed for the widening of a road 'ore than fort/three ears ago# witho$t %enefit of an action of e'inent do'ain or agree'ent with its owners# al%eit witho$t

+rotest % the latter.

,he lots %elong to the +etitioners# *ose !a. Ansaldo and !aria Angela Ansaldo# areco-ered % title in their na'es 2 and ha-e an aggregate area of 2#412 s5$are 'eters.

,hese lots were taen fro' the Ansaldos so'eti'e in 281 % the De+art'ent of 0$%lic

6or ,rans+ortation and Co''$nication and 'ade +art of what $sed to %e Sta. !esa

Street and is now Ra'on !agsasa A-en$e at San *$an# !etro !anila. ,his# to re+eat#witho$t de'$r on the +art of the owners.

Said owners 'ade no 'o-e whate-er $ntil twent/si" ears later. ,he wrote to as for

co'+ensation for their land on *an$ar 77# 28. 7 ,heir clai' was referred to the

Secretar of *$stice who in d$e co$rse rendered an o+inion dated Fe%r$ar 77# 28# that &$st co'+ensation sho$ld %e +aid in accordance with 0residential Decree No. ;. 1

,he Decree +ro-ided that the %asis for the +a'ent of &$st co'+ensation of +ro+erttaen for +$%lic $se sho$ld %e the c$rrent and fair 'aret -al$e thereof as declared % the

owner or ad'inistrator# or s$ch 'aret -al$e as deter'ined % the assessor# whiche-er

was lower.9 ,he Secretar of *$stice th$s ad-ised that the corres+onding e"+ro+riations$it %e forthwith instit$ted to fi" the &$st co'+ensation to %e +aid to the Ansaldos.

0$rs$ant to this o+inion# the Co''issioner of 0$%lic <ighwas re5$ested the 0ro-incial

Assessor of Ri>al to 'ae a redeter'ination of the 'aret -al$e of the Ansaldos +ro+ert

in accordance with 0D ;. ; ,he new -al$ation was 'ade# after which the A$ditor of theB$rea$ of 0$%lic <ighwas forwarded the Ansaldos clai' to the A$ditor =eneral with

the reco''endation that +a'ent %e 'ade on the %asis of the c$rrent and fair 'aret

-al$e# . . . and not on the fair 'aret -al$e at the ti'e of taing.

,he Co''ission on A$dit# howe-er# declined to ado+t the reco''endation. In a decision

handed down on Se+te'%er 7;# 28# the Acting Chair'an r$led that the a'o$nt of co'+ensation to %e +aid to the clai'ants is to %e deter'ined as of the ti'e of the taing

of the s$%&ect lots# 3 i.e. 281. ,he r$ling was reiterated % the Co''ission on

Se+te'%er 3# 283# and again on *an$ar 79# 288 when it denied the Ansaldos 'otion

for reconsideration. 8 It is these r$lings of the Co''ission on A$dit that the Ansaldosha-e a++ealed to this Co$rt.

6hile not decisi-e of this case# it 'a %e stressed that the +ro-isions of 0residential

Decree No. ; and its related or s$ccessor decrees (N$'%ered 1;1# 81 and 29) nolonger deter'ine the &$st co'+ensation +aa%le to owners of e"+ro+riated +ro+ert. Said

+ro-isions were# it 'a %e recalled# str$c down as $nconstit$tional and -oid in 2833# in

E"+ort 0rocessing one A$thorit -. D$la# 24 which declared that the 'ode therein +rescri%ed for deter'ining &$st co'+ensation# i. e.# on the %asis of the -al$e declared %

the owner or ad'inistrator or on that deter'ined % the assessor# whiche-er is lower#

constit$ted an i'+er'issi%le encroach'ent on the &$dicial +rerogati-e to resol-e the iss$e

in an a++ro+riate +roceeding of e'inent do'ain.



Now# nothing in the record e-en re'otel s$ggests that the land was taen fro' the

Ansaldos against their will. Indeed# all indications# not the least of which is their silence

for 'ore than two decades# are that the consented to s$ch a taing altho$gh the newthat no e"+ro+riation case had %een co''enced at all. ,here is therefore no reason# as

regards the Ansaldos +ro+ert# to i'+$gn the e"istence of the +ower to e"+ro+riate# or

the +$%lic +$r+ose for which that +ower was e"ercised.,he sole 5$estion th$s confronting the Co$rt in-ol-es the +recise ti'e at which &$st

co'+ensation sho$ld %e fi"ed# whether as of the ti'e of act$al taing of +ossession %

the e"+ro+riating entit or# as the Ansaldos 'aintain# onl after con-eance of title to thee"+ro+riator +$rs$ant to e"+ro+riation +roceedings d$l instit$ted since it is onl at s$ch

a ti'e that the constit$tional re5$ire'ents of d$e +rocess aside fro' those of &$st

co'+ensation 'a %e f$ll 'et.

Nor'all# of co$rse# where the instit$tion of an e"+ro+riation action +recedes the taingof the +ro+ert s$%&ect thereof# the &$st co'+ensation is fi"ed as of the ti'e of the filing

of the co'+laint. ,his is so +ro-ided % the R$les of Co$rt# 22 the ass$'+tion of

+ossession % the e"+ro+riator ordinaril %eing conditioned on its de+osits with the

National or 0ro-incial ,reas$rer of the -al$e of the +ro+ert as +ro-isionall ascertained % the co$rt ha-ing &$risdiction of the +roceedings.

,here are instances# howe-er# where the e"+ro+riating agenc taes o-er the +ro+ert +rior to the e"+ro+riation s$it# as in this case altho$gh# to re+eat# the case at %ar is 5$ite

e"traordinar in that +ossession was taen % the e"+ro+riator 'ore than 14 ears +rior to

s$it. In these instances# this Co$rt has r$led that the &$st co'+ensation shall %edeter'ined as of the ti'e of taing# not as of the ti'e of filing of the action of e'inent

do'ain.

In the conte"t of the States inherent +ower of e'inent do'ain# there is a taing when

the owner is act$all de+ri-ed or dis+ossessed of his +ro+ert when there is a +racticaldestr$ction or a 'aterial i'+air'ent of the -al$e of his +ro+ert or when he is de+ri-ed

of the ordinar $se thereof. 27 ,here is a taing in this sense when the e"+ro+riator

enters +ri-ate +ro+ert not onl for a 'o'entar +eriod %$t for a 'ore +er'anentd$ration# for the +$r+ose of de-oting the +ro+ert to a +$%lic $se in s$ch a 'anner as to

o$st the owner and de+ri-e hi' of all %eneficial en&o'ent thereof. 2 For ownershi+#

after all# is nothing witho$t the inherent rights of +ossession# control and en&o'ent.6here the owner is de+ri-ed of the ordinar and %eneficial $se of his +ro+ert or of its

-al$e % its %eing di-erted to +$%lic $se# there is taing within the Constit$tional sense.

21 @nder these nor's# there was $ndo$%tedl a taing of the Ansaldos +ro+ert when the

=o-ern'ent o%tained +ossession thereof and con-erted it into a +art of a thoro$ghfare for +$%lic $se.

It is as of the ti'e of s$ch a taing# to re+eat# that the &$st co'+ensation for the +ro+ert

is to %e esta%lished. As stated in Re+$%lic -. 0hili++ine National Ban# 29

. . . (6)hen +laintiff taes +ossession %efore the instit$tion of the conde'nation +roceedings# the -al$e sho$ld %e fi"ed as of the ti'e of the taing of said +ossession# not

of filing of the co'+laint and the latter sho$ld %e the %asis for the deter'ination of the

-al$e# when the taing of the +ro+ert in-ol-ed coincides with or is s$%se5$ent to# the

co''ence'ent of the +roceedings. Indeed# otherwise# the +ro-ision of R$le ;8# Section



# directing that co'+ensation %e deter'ined as of the date of the filing of the co'+laint

wo$ld ne-er %e o+erati-e. As inti'ated in Re+$%lic -. Lara (s$+ra)# said +ro-ision

conte'+lates nor'al circ$'stances# $nder which the co'+laint coincides or e-en +recedes the taing of the +ro+ert % the +laintiff.

,he reason for the r$le# as +ointed o$t in R+$%lic -. Larae# 2; is that

. . . (6)here +ro+ert is taen ahead of the filing of the conde'nation +roceedings# the-al$e thereof 'a %e enchanced % the +$%lic +$r+ose for which it is taen the entr %

the +laintiff $+on the +ro+ert 'a ha-e de+reciated its -al$e there% or# there 'a ha-e

%een a nat$ral increase in the -al$e of the +ro+ert fro' the ti'e the co'+laint is filed#d$e to general econo'ic conditions. ,he owner of +ri-ate +ro+ert sho$ld %e

co'+ensated onl for what he act$all loses it is not intended that his co'+ensation

shall e"tend %eond his loss or in&$r. And what he loses is onl the act$al -al$e of his

+ro+ert at the ti'e it is taen. ,his is the onl wa that co'+ensation to %e +aid can %etr$l &$st i.e.#&$st not onl to the indi-id$al whose +ro+ert is taen %$t# to the +$%lic#

which is to +a for it.

Clearl# then# the -al$e of the Ansaldos +ro+ert '$st %e ascertained as of the ear 281#

when it was act$all taen# and not at the ti'e of the filing of the e"+ro+riation s$it#which# % the wa# still has to %e done. It is as of that ti'e that the real 'eas$re of their

loss 'a fairl %e ad&$dged. ,he -al$e# once fi"ed# shall earn interest at the legal rate$ntil f$ll +a'ent is effected# confor'a%l with other +rinci+les laid down % case law.

2

6<EREFORE# the +etition is DENIED# the challenged decision of the Co''ission on

A$dit is AFFIR!ED# and the De+art'ent of 0$%lic 6ors and <ighwas is DIREC,ED

to forthwith instit$te the a++ro+riate e"+ro+riation action o-er the land in 5$estion so that

the &$st co'+ensation d$e its owners 'a %e deter'ined in accordance with the R$les of Co$rt# with interest at the legal rate of si" +ercent (;M) +er ann$' fro' the ti'e of

taing $ntil f$ll +a'ent is 'ade. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

NA,IONAL 0O6ER COR0ORA,ION# 0etitioner#

-s.

A@RELLANO S. ,IAN=CO# LO@RDES S. ,IAN=CO and NES,OR S. ,IAN=CO#Res+ondents.

In this +etition for re-iew on certiorari $nder R$le 19 of the R$les of Co$rt# +etitioner

National 0ower Cor+oration (N0C) sees the ann$l'ent and setting aside of the



Decision2 dated !arch 21# 7449 of the Co$rt of A++eals(CA) in CA/=.R. CV No. 99;#

as reiterated in its Resol$tion7 of Dece'%er 7# 7449 which denied the +etitionerJs 'otion

for reconsideration. ,he assailed decision 'odified that of the Regional ,rial Co$rt(R,C) of ,ana# Ri>al# Branch 34# % increasing the a'o$nt of &$st co'+ensation d$e the

res+ondents in an e"+ro+riation case filed against the' % the +etitioner.

,he facts:<erein res+ondents A$rellano# Lo$rdes and Nestor# all s$rna'ed ,iangco# are the owners

of a +arcel of land with an area of 297#23 s5$are 'eters at Baranga Sa'+aloc# ,ana#

Ri>al and registered in their na'es $nder ,C, No. !/23;9 of the Registr of Deeds of Ri>al.

On the other hand# +etitioner N0C is a go-ern'ent/owned and controlled cor+oration

created for the +$r+ose of $ndertaing the de-elo+'ent and generation of +ower fro'

whate-er so$rce. N0CJs charter (Re+$%lic Act No. ;89) a$thori>es the cor+oration toac5$ire +ri-ate +ro+ert and e"ercise the right of e'inent do'ain.2aw+hi2.net

N0C re5$ires 28#17 s5$are 'eters of the res+ondentsJ afore'entioned +ro+ert# across

which its 944- alaaan/San *ose ,rans'ission Line 0ro&ect will tra-erse. N0CJs

Segregation 0lan for the +$r+ose shows that the desired right/of/wa will c$t thro$ghthe res+ondentsJ land# in s$ch a 'anner that #87 s5$are 'eters thereof will %e left

se+arated fro' 88#7 s5$are 'eters of the +ro+ert. 6ithin the +ortion so$ght to %ee"+ro+riated stand fr$it/%earing tress# s$ch as 'ango# a-ocado# &acfr$it# cas$# santol#

cala'ansi# sintones and cocon$t trees.

On No-e'%er 74# 2884# after re+eated $ns$ccessf$l negotiations with the res+ondents# N0C filed with the R,C of ,ana# Ri>al a co'+laint for e"+ro+riation1 against the'. In

ti'e# the res+ondents filed their answer.

On !arch 21# 2882# the trial co$rt iss$ed a Conde'nation Order# granting N0C the right

to tae +ossession of the area so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated. In the sa'e Order# the co$rtdirected the +arties to no'inate their res+ecti-e co''issioners# with a third 'e'%er to

%e no'inated and a++ointed % the co$rt itself# to deter'ine the +ro+er a'o$nt of &$st

co'+ensation to %e +aid to the res+ondents. As constit$ted in the 'anner th$s indicated#the %oard of co''issioners was co'+osed of the following: for N0C# Att. Restit$to

!allo of its Legal De+art'ent for the res+ondents# !r. Basilio Af$ang# a geodetic

engineer and a real estate %roer % +rofession and for the co$rt# Cler of Co$rt V !s.A'elia de =$>'an Car%onell.

On A+ril 9# 2882# the trial co$rt iss$ed an order directing N0C to +a and de+osit with the

Ri>al 0ro-incial ,reas$rer the a'o$nt of 032#741.44# re+resenting the te'+orar

+ro-isional -al$e of the area s$%&ect of the e"+ro+riation +rior to the taing of +ossessionthereof. On A+ril 77# 2882# with N0C ha-ing co'+lied with the de+osit re5$ire'ent# a

writ of +ossession was iss$ed in its fa-or.

,hereafter# an oc$lar ins+ection of the +re'ises was cond$cted and hearings %efore the %oard of co''issioners were held# d$ring which the !$nici+al Assessor of ,ana# Ri>al

was +resented. <e s$%'itted a record of the Sched$le of Val$es for ta"ation +$r+oses and

a certification to the effect that the $nit -al$e of the res+ondentsJ +ro+ert is 072#444.44 +er hectare.

On A$g$st # 288# co''issioner Basilio Af$ang for the res+ondents filed his re+ort. <e

+egged the +rice of the area so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated at 04.44 +er s5$are 'eter or

0937#;84.449 in the aggregate and for the i'+ro-e'ents thereon# Af$ang +laced a

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_170846_2007.html#fnt1












-al$ation of 07#48#894.44. ,he fig$res are in contrast with the res+ondentsJ own

-al$ation of 0;44#;44.44# for the area# and 01#89#944.44# for the i'+ro-e'ents.

On Se+te'%er 21# 288# N0C filed an a'ended co'+laint to ac5$ire onl 28#17 s5$are'eters of the res+ondentsJ +ro+ert. ,he original area of 74#774 s5$are 'eters initiall

so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated $nder the original co'+laint t$rned o$t to %e in e"cess of the

area re5$ired.For its +art# N0C 'ade it clear that it is interested onl in ac5$iring an ease'ent of right/

of/wa o-er the res+ondentsJ +ro+ert and that ownershi+ of the area o-er which the

right/of/wa will %e esta%lished shall re'ain with the res+ondents. For this reason# N0Cclai's that it sho$ld +a# in addition to the agreed or ad&$dged -al$e of the i'+ro-e'ents

on the area# onl an ease'ent fee in an a'o$nt e5$i-alent to ten +er cent (24M) of the

'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert as declared % the res+ondents or % the !$nici+al Assessor#

whiche-er is lower# as +ro-ided for $nder Section /A of Re+$%lic Act No. ;89# asa'ended % 0residential Decree 83.;

,he co$rt/a++ointed co''issioner# !s. A'elia de =$>'an Car%onell# fo$nd that the ris

and dangero$s nat$re of the trans'ission line +ro&ect essentiall de+ri-e the res+ondents

of the $se of the area. Nonetheless# she reco''ended that the deter'ination of &$stco'+ensation sho$ld %e relegated to e"+ert a++raisers.

Fro' the e-idence %efore it# the trial co$rt 'ade a deter'ination that the 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert is 07.48 +er s5$are 'eter# or 014#981.4 for the entire 28#17 s5$are 'eters

needed % N0C# and not the 04.44 +er s5$are 'eter clai'ed % the res+ondents. Neither

did the trial co$rt consider N0CJs reliance on Section /A of Re+$%lic Act No. ;89# asa'ended % 0residential Decree 83# the co$rt +lacing 'ore weight on the res+ondentsJ

arg$'ent that e"+ro+riation wo$ld res$lt in the s$%stantial i'+air'ent of the $se of the

area needed# e-en tho$gh what is so$ght is a 'ere aerial right/of/wa. ,he co$rt fo$nd as

reasona%le the a'o$nt of071#94.44 offered % N0C for the i'+ro-e'ents# as the sa'eis %ased on the official c$rrent sched$le of -al$es as deter'ined % the !$nici+al

Assessor of ,ana# Ri>al.

<ence# in its decision3 of Fe%r$ar 28# 288;# the trial co$rt rendered &$dg'ent asfollows:

6<EREFORE# in -iew of the foregoing# &$dg'ent is here% rendered:

2. E"+ro+riating in fa-or of N0CP a +arcel of land co-ering a total area of 28#17 s5.'.co-ered % ,C, No. !/23;4 owned % the res+ondentsP

7. Ordering the a'o$nt of 014#981.4 as &$st co'+ensation for the 28#17 s5$are 'eters

of land affected % the e"+ro+riations and the a'o$nt of 071#94.44 as reasona%le

co'+ensation for the i'+ro-e'ents on the land e"+ro+riated with legal interest fro' theti'e of +ossession % the +laintiff. No +rono$nce'ent as to costs.

SO ORDERED. (6ords in %racets s$++lied.)

,he res+ondents 'o-ed for reconsideration# +resenting for the first ti'e a doc$'ententitled B$rea$ of Internal Re-en$e Circ$lar of A++raisal# which shows that for the

ear 2839# lands in Baranga Sa'+aloc were -al$ed at04.44 +er s5$are 'eter for the

ear 2887# at 034.44 +er s5$are 'eter and for ear 2881# at 0244.44 +er s5$are 'eter.Res+ondents 'aintain that the +rice of 04.44 +er s5$are 'eter for the needed area of

28#17 s5$are 'eters is the reasona%le a'o$nt and sho$ld %e the %asis for fi"ing the

a'o$nt of &$st co'+ensation d$e the'. ,he trial co$rt denied the 'otion# stating that the

BIR circ$lar in 5$estion was %elatedl filed and therefore N0C co$ld not ha-e o++osed









its +resentation.

Fro' the aforesaid decision of the trial co$rt# %oth N0C and the res+ondents went on

a++eal to the CA whereat the se+arate a++eals were consolidated and doceted as CA/=.R. CV No. 99;. ,he a++ellate co$rt fo$nd 'erit in the res+ondentsJ a++eal# and

disregarded the 07.48 +er s5$are 'eter -al$ation of the trial co$rt# which was %ased on a

2831 ta" declaration. Instead# the CA +laced reliance $+on a 288 ta" declaration# %eingonl two ears re'o-ed fro' the ti'e of taing.8 ,he a++ellate co$rt deter'ined the

ti'e of taing to %e in 2882. ,h$s# the greater -al$e of 082#277.44 as declared in ,a"

Declaration No. 422/7;; dated *$l 7# 288 sho$ld %e the %asis for deter'ining &$stco'+ensation. 6ith regard to the -al$e of i'+ro-e'ents# the a++ellate co$rt fo$nd

N0CJs -al$ation 'ore fa-ora%le# %eing %ased on the c$rrent (2882) sched$le of -al$es for

trees in the +ro-inces of Ri>al and Lag$na. <ence# in its decision24 of !arch 21# 7449#

the CA rendered &$dg'ent# to wit:6<EREFORE# the instant A++eal is =RAN,ED. ,he decision of the Regional ,rial

Co$rt of ,ana# Ri>al# Branch 34 dated Fe%r$ar 28# 288; is here% !ODIFIED and the

co'+ensation awarded for the 28#17 s5$are 'eters of land affected is increased to

022;#93.44# and the reasona%le co'+ensation for the i'+ro-e'ents thereon is liewiseincreased to 079#479.44# with legal interest fro' the ti'e of +ossession % the +laintiff/

a++ellee NA0OCOR. No +rono$nce'ent as to costs.SO ORDERED.

N0C 'o-ed for reconsideration# %$t its 'otion was denied % the a++ellate co$rt in its

resol$tion22 of Dece'%er 7# 7449.<ence# N0CJs instant +etition for re-iew# s$%'itting for o$r resol$tion onl the following

iss$es with res+ect to thea'o$nt of &$st co'+ensation that '$st %e +aid the res+ondents

for the e"+ro+riated +ortion (28#17 s5$are 'eters) of their +ro+ert:

2. Is it to %e %ased on the 2831 or the 288 -al$ationQ7. Sho$ld N0C +a for the -al$e of the land %eing taen# or sho$ld it %e li'ited to what is

+ro-ided for $nder 0.D. 83# that is# ten +er cent (24M) of its 'aret -al$e as declared %

the owner or the assessor (whiche-er is lower)# considering that the +$r+ose for which the +ro+ert is %eing taen is 'erel for the esta%lish'ent of a safe and free +assage for its

o-erhead trans'ission linesQ

,here is no iss$e as to the i'+ro-e'ents. Since the 079#479.44 -al$ation therefor is the-er +rice set % the N0C co''issioner# to which the cor+oration did not o%&ect %$t

otherwise ado+ts# the Co$rt fi"es the a'o$nt of079#479.44 as &$st co'+ensation for the

i'+ro-e'ents.

6e now co'e to the 'ore weight 5$estion of what a'o$nt is &$st % wa of co'+ensation for the 28#17 s5$are/'eter +ortion of the res+ondentsJ +ro+ert.

In e'inent do'ain cases# the ti'e of taing is the filing of the co'+laint# if there was no

act$al taing +rior thereto. <ence# in this case# the -al$e of the +ro+ert at the ti'e of thefiling of the co'+laint on No-e'%er 74# 2884 sho$ld %e considered in deter'ining the

&$st co'+ensation d$e the res+ondents. So it is that in National0ower Cor+oration -.

Co$rt of A++eals# et al.#27 we r$led: Nor'all# the ti'e of the taing coincides with the filing of the co'+laint for

e"+ro+riation. <ence# 'an r$lings of this Co$rt ha-e e5$ated &$st co'+ensation with the

-al$e of the +ro+ert as of the ti'e of filing of the co'+laint consistent with the a%o-e

+ro-ision of the R$les. So too# where the instit$tion of the action +recedes entr into the












+ro+ert# the &$st co'+ensation is to %e ascertained as of the ti'e of the filing of the

co'+laint.

,he trial co$rt fi"ed the -al$e of the +ro+ert at its 2831 -al$e# while the CA# at its 288worth. Neither of the two deter'inations is correct. For +$r+oses of &$st co'+ensation#

the res+ondents sho$ld %e +aid the -al$e of the +ro+ert as of the ti'e of the filing of the

co'+laint which is dee'ed to %e the ti'e of taing the +ro+ert.It was certainl $nfair for the trial co$rt to ha-e considered a +ro+ert -al$e se-eral ears

%ehind its worth at the ti'e the co'+laint in this case was filed on No-e'%er 74# 2884.

,he landowners are necessaril shortchanged# considering that# as a r$le# land -al$esen&o stead $+ward 'o-e'ent. It was liewise erroneo$s for the a++ellate co$rt to ha-e

fi"ed the -al$e of the +ro+ert on the %asis of a 288 assess'ent. N0C wo$ld %e +aing

too '$ch. 0etitioner cor+oration is correct in arg$ing that the res+ondents sho$ld not

+rofit fro' an assess'ent 'ade ears after the taing.,he e"+ro+riation +roceedings in this case ha-ing %een initiated % N0C on No-e'%er

74# 2884# +ro+ert -al$es on s$ch 'onth and ear sho$ld la the %asis for the +ro+er

deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation. In Association of S'all Landowners in the

0hili++ines# Inc. -. Secretar of Agrarian Refor'#2 the Co$rt r$led that the e5$i-alent to %e rendered for the +ro+ert to %e taen shall %e s$%stantial# f$ll# a'+le and# as '$st

a++l to this case# real. ,his '$st %e taen to 'ean# a'ong others# that the -al$e as of theti'e of taing sho$ld %e the +rice to %e +aid the +ro+ert owner.

*$st co'+ensation is defined as the f$ll and fair e5$i-alent of the +ro+ert taen fro' its

owner % the e"+ro+riator. In this case# this si'+l 'eans the +ro+ertJs fair 'aret -al$eat the ti'e of the filing of the co'+laint# or that s$' of 'one which a +erson desiro$s

%$t not co'+elled to %$# and an owner willing %$t not co'+elled to sell# wo$ld agree on

as a +rice to %e gi-en and recei-ed therefor.21 ,he 'eas$re is not the taerJs gain# %$t

the ownerJs loss.In the deter'ination of s$ch -al$e# the co$rt is not li'ited to the assessed -al$e of the

+ro+ert or to the sched$le of 'aret -al$es deter'ined % the +ro-incial or cit

a++raisal co''ittee these -al$es consist %$t one factor in the &$dicial -al$ation of the +ro+ert.29 ,he nat$re and character of the land at the ti'e of its taing is the +rinci+al

criterion for deter'ining how '$ch &$st co'+ensation sho$ld %e gi-en to the

landowner 2; All the facts as to the condition of the +ro+ert and its s$rro$ndings# as wellas its i'+ro-e'ents and ca+a%ilities# sho$ld %e considered.2

Neither of the two deter'inations 'ade % the co$rts %elow is therefore correct. A new

one '$st %e arri-ed at# taing into consideration the foregoing +rono$nce'ents.

Now# to the second iss$e raised % +etitioner N0C.In se-eral cases# the Co$rt str$c down N0CJs consistent reliance on Section /A of

Re+$%lic Act No. ;89# as a'ended % 0residential Decree 83.23 ,r$e# an ease'ent of a

right/of/wa trans'its no rights e"ce+t the ease'ent itself# and the res+ondents wo$ldretain f$ll ownershi+ of the +ro+ert taen. Nonetheless# the ac5$isition of s$ch ease'ent

is not gratis. ,he li'itations on the $se of the +ro+ert taen for an indefinite +eriod

wo$ld de+ri-e its owner of the nor'al $se thereof. For this reason# the latter is entitled to +a'ent of a &$st co'+ensation# which '$st %e neither 'ore nor less than the 'onetar

e5$i-alent of the land taen.28

6hile the +ower of e'inent do'ain res$lts in the taing or a++ro+riation of title to# and

+ossession of# the e"+ro+riated +ro+ert# no cogent reason a++ears wh said +ower 'a

















not %e a-ailed of to i'+ose onl a %$rden $+on the owner of the conde'ned +ro+ert#

witho$t loss of title and +ossession.74 <owe-er# if the ease'ent is intended to

+er+et$all or indefinitel de+ri-e the owner of his +ro+rietar rights thro$gh thei'+osition of conditions that affect the ordinar $se# free en&o'ent and dis+osal of the

+ro+ert or thro$gh restrictions and li'itations that are inconsistent with the e"ercise of

the attri%$tes of ownershi+# or when the introd$ction of str$ct$res or o%&ects which# %their nat$re# create or increase the +ro%a%ilit of in&$r# death $+on or destr$ction of life

and +ro+ert fo$nd on the land is necessar# then the owner sho$ld %e co'+ensated for

the 'onetar e5$i-alent of the land# in accordance with o$r r$ling in N0C -. !an$%aAgro/Ind$strial:

As correctl o%ser-ed % the CA# considering the nat$re and the effect of the installation

+ower lines# the li'itations on the $se of the land for an indefinite +eriod wo$ld de+ri-e

res+ondent of nor'al $se of the +ro+ert. For this reason# the latter is entitled to +a'entof a &$st co'+ensation# which '$st %e neither 'ore nor less than the 'onetar e5$i-alent

of the land.72

,he e-idence s$ggests that N0CJs trans'ission line +ro&ect that tra-erses the

res+ondentsJ +ro+ert is +er+et$al# or at least indefinite# in nat$re. !oreo-er# not to %edisco$nted is the fact that the high/tension c$rrent to %e con-eed thro$gh said

trans'ission lines e-identl +oses a danger to life and li'% in&$r# death or destr$ction tolife and +ro+ert within the -icinit. As the Co$rt held in N0C -. Chiong#77 it is not

i'+ro+er to ass$'e that N0C will erect str$ct$res for its trans'ission lines within the

+ro+ert. 6hat is so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated in this case is# at its longest e"tent# 7;.1'eters# and thro$gh it 'a %e %$ilt se-eral str$ct$res# not si'+l one. Finall# if N0C

were to ha-e its wa# res+ondents will contin$e to +a the realt ta"es d$e on the affected

+ortion of their +ro+ert# an i'+osition that# a'ong others# 'erits the re&ection of N0CJs

thesis of +a'ent of a 'ere +ercentage of the +ro+ertJs act$al -al$e.6<EREFORE# the instant +etition is =RAN,ED in +art in that the decision of the Co$rt

of A++eals dated !arch 21# 7449 -is a -is the award of 022;#93.44# as and % wa of

&$st co'+ensation for the 28#17 s5$are 'eters of the res+ondentsJ +ro+ert# is SE,ASIDE# and the case is ordered RE!ANDED to the co$rt of origin for the +ro+er

deter'ination of the a'o$nt of &$st co'+ensation for the +ortion th$s taen# %ased on o$r

+rono$nce'ents hereon. ,he sa'e decision# howe-er# is AFFIR!ED# insofar as it +ertains to the award of079#479.44 for the i'+ro-e'ents# with legal interest fro' the

ti'e of act$al +ossession % the +etitioner.

No +rono$nce'ent as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

,<E CI,H OF CEB@# +etitioner#

-s.

S0O@SES A0OLONIO and BLASA DEDA!O# res+ondents.










In its +etition for re-iew on certiorari $nder R$le 19 of the 288 R$les of Ci-il

0roced$re# +etitioner Cit of Ce%$ assails the decision of 22 Octo%er 2888 of the Co$rt of A++eals in CA/=.R. CV No. 987412Pﾧ affir'ing the &$dg'ent of !a 288; of the

Regional ,rial Co$rt# Branch 2# Ce%$ Cit# in Ci-il Case No. CEB/21;7# a case for

e'inent do'ain# which fi"ed the -al$ation of the land s$%&ect thereof on the %asis of thereco''endation of the co''issioners a++ointed % it.

,he 'aterial o+erati-e facts are not dis+$ted.

On 2 Se+te'%er 288# +etitioner Cit of Ce%$ filed in Ci-il Case No. CEB/21;7 a

co'+laint for e'inent do'ain against res+ondents s+o$ses A+olonio and Blasa Deda'o.

,he +etitioner alleged therein that it needed the following +arcels of land of res+ondents#to wit:

for a +$%lic +$r+ose# i.e.# for the constr$ction of a +$%lic road which shall ser-e as an

accessrelief road of =orordo A-en$e to e"tend to the =eneral !a"il$' A-en$e and the

%ac of !agellan International <otel Roads in Ce%$ Cit. ,he lots are the 'ost s$ita%lesite for the +$r+ose. ,he total area so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated is 2#;71 s5$are 'eters with

an assessed -al$e of 02#3;#144. 0etitioner de+osited with the 0hili++ine National Ban the a'o$nt of 092#29; re+resenting 29M of the fair 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert to

ena%le the +etitioner to tae i''ediate +ossession of the +ro+ert +$rs$ant to Section 28

of R.A. No. 2;4.7Pﾧ

Res+ondents# filed a 'otion to dis'iss the co'+laint %eca$se the +$r+ose for which

their +ro+ert was to %e e"+ro+riated was not for a +$%lic +$r+ose %$t for %enefit of asingle +ri-ate entit# the Ce%$ <oldings# Inc. 0etitioner co$ld si'+l %$ directl fro'

the' the +ro+ert at its fair 'aret -al$e if it wanted to# &$st lie what it did with the

neigh%oring lots. Besides# the +rice offered was -er low in light of the consideration of

074#444 +er s5$are 'eter# 'ore or less# which +etitioner +aid to the neigh%oring lots.Finall# res+ondents alleged that the ha-e no other land in Ce%$ Cit.

A +re/trial was thereafter had.

On 7 A$g$st 2881# +etitioner filed a 'otion for the iss$ance of a writ of +ossession +$rs$ant to Section 28 of R.A. No. 2;4. ,he 'otion was granted % the trial co$rt on 72

Se+te'%er 2881.Pﾧ

On 21 Dece'%er 2881# the +arties e"ec$ted and s$%'itted to the trial co$rt an

Agree'ent1P ﾧ wherein the declared that the ha-e +artiall settled the case and in

consideration thereof the agreed:

2. ,hat the SECOND 0AR,H here% confor's to the intention to sicP theFIRS, 0AR,H in e"+ro+riating their +arcels of land in the a%o-e/cited case

as for +$%lic +$r+ose and for the %enefit of the general +$%lic

7. ,hat the SECOND 0AR,H agrees to +art with the ownershi+ of the s$%&ect

+arcels of land in fa-or of the FIRS, 0AR,H +ro-ided the latter will +a &$stco'+ensation for the sa'e in the a'o$nt deter'ined % the co$rt after d$e

notice and hearing

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/142971.htm#_edn1










. ,hat in the 'eanti'e the SECOND 0AR,H agrees to recei-e the a'o$nt of

ONE !ILLION SEVEN <@NDRED EI=<,H SI ,<O@SAND FO@R

<@NDRED 0ESOS (2#3;#144.44) as +ro-isional +a'ent for the s$%&ect +arcels of land# witho$t +re&$dice to the final -al$ation as 'a%e deter'ined

% the co$rt

1. ,hat the FIRS, 0AR,H in the light of the iss$ance of the 6rit of 0ossessionOrder dated Se+te'%er 72# 2881 iss$ed % the <onora%le Co$rt# agreed to

tae +ossession o-er that +ortion of the lot so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated where

the ho$se of the SECOND 0AR,H was located onl after fifteen (29) das

$+on the recei+t of the SECOND 0AR,H of the a'o$nt of 02#3;#144.44

9. ,hat the SECOND 0AR,H $+on recei+t of the aforesaid +ro-isional a'o$nt#

shall t$rn o-er to the FIRS, 0AR,H the title of the lot and within the la+se of

the fifteen (29) das grace +eriod will -ol$ntaril de'olish their ho$se andthe other str$ct$re that 'a %e located thereon at their own e"+ense

;. ,hat the FIRS, 0AR,H and the SECOND 0AR,H &ointl +etition the

<onora%le Co$rt to render &$dg'ent in said Ci-il Case No. CEB/21;7 inaccordance with this A=REE!EN,

. ,hat the &$dg'ent so$ght to %e rendered $nder this agree'ent shall %e

followed % a s$++le'ental &$dg'ent fi"ing the &$st co'+ensation for the

+ro+ert of the SECOND 0AR,H after the Co''issioners a++ointed % this<onora%le Co$rt to deter'ine the sa'e shall ha-e rendered their re+ort and

a++ro-ed % the co$rt.

0$rs$ant to said agree'ent# the trial co$rt a++ointed three co''issioners todeter'ine the &$st co'+ensation of the lots so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated. ,he

co''issioners were 0aler'o !. L$go# who was no'inated % +etitioner and who was

designated as Chair'an Alfredo Cisneros# who was no'inated % res+ondents and<er%ert E. B$ot# who was designated % the trial co$rt. ,he +arties agreed to their a++oint'ent.

,hereafter# the co''issioners s$%'itted their re+ort# which contained their

res+ecti-e assess'ents of and reco''endation as to the -al$ation of the +ro+ert.

On the %asis of the co''issionersJ re+ort and after d$e deli%eration thereon# the trial

co$rt rendered its decision on !a 288;#9Pﾧ the decretal +ortion of which reads:

6<EREFORE# in -iew of the foregoing# &$dg'ent is here% rendered in accordance with

the re+ort of the co''issioners.

0laintiff is directed to +a S+o$ses A+olonio S. Deda'o and Blasa Deda'o the s$' of +esos: ,6EN,H FO@R !ILLION EI=<, <@NDRED SI,H/FIVE ,<O@SAND

AND NINE <@NDRED ,<IR,H (071#3;9.84.44) re+resenting the co'+ensation

'entioned in the Co'+laint.0laintiff and defendants are directed to +a the following co''issionerJs fee

2. ,o 0aler'o L$go / 072#444.44

7. ,o <er%ert B$ot / 028#444.44. ,o Alfredo Cisneros / 028#444.44





6itho$t +rono$nce'ent as to cost.

SO ORDERED.

0etitioner filed a 'otion for reconsideration on the gro$nd that the co''issionersJre+ort was inacc$rate since it incl$ded an area which was not s$%&ect to e"+ro+riation.

!ore s+ecificall# it contended that Lot No. 2973 contains 8 s5$are 'eters %$t the

act$al area to %e e"+ro+riated is onl 13 s5$are 'eters. ,he re'aining 29 s5$are'eters is the s$%&ect of a se+arate e"+ro+riation +roceeding in Ci-il Case No. CEB/313#

then +ending %efore Branch 8 of the Regional ,rial Co$rt of Ce%$ Cit.

On 2; A$g$st 288;# the co''issioners s$%'itted an a'ended assess'ent for the

13 s5$are 'eters of Lot No. 2973 and fi"ed it at 027#371.24 +er s5$are 'eter# or in thea'o$nt of 074#37;#8.94. ,he assess'ent was a++ro-ed as the &$st co'+ensation

thereof % the trial co$rt in its Order of 7 Dece'%er 288;.;P ﾧ Accordingl# the

dis+ositi-e +ortion of the decision was a'ended to reflect the new -al$ation.

0etitioner ele-ated the case to the Co$rt of A++eals# which doceted the case as CA/=.R. CV No. 98741. 0etitioner alleged that the lower co$rt erred in fi"ing the a'o$nt of

&$st co'+ensation at 074#37;#8.94. ,he &$st co'+ensation sho$ld %e %ased on the +re-ailing 'aret +rice of the +ro+ert at the co''ence'ent of the e"+ro+riation +roceedings.

,he +etitioner did not con-ince the Co$rt of A++eals. In its decision of 22 Octo%er

2888#Pﾧ the Co$rt of A++eals affir'ed in toto the decision of the trial co$rt.

Still $nsatisfied# +etitioner filed with $s the +etition for re-iew in the case at %ar. It

raises the sole iss$e of whether &$st co'+ensation sho$ld %e deter'ined as of the date of the filing of the co'+laint. It asserts that it sho$ld %e# which in this case sho$ld %e 2

Se+te'%er 288 and not at the ti'e the +ro+ert was act$all taen in 2881# +$rs$ant to

the decision in ?National 0ower Cor+oration -s. Co$rt of A++eals.3Pﾧ

In their Co''ent# res+ondents 'aintain that the Co$rt of A++eals did not err in

affir'ing the decision of the trial co$rt %eca$se (2) the trial co$rt decided the case on the %asis of the agree'ent of the +arties that &$st co'+ensation shall %e fi"ed %

co''issioners a++ointed % the co$rt (7) +etitioner did not inter+ose an serio$s

o%&ection to the co''issionersJ re+ort of 27 A$g$st 288; fi"ing the &$st co'+ensation of the 2#;71/s5$are 'eter lot at 074#37;#8.94 hence# it was esto++ed fro' attacing the

re+ort on which the decision was %ased and () the deter'ined &$st co'+ensation fi"ed

is e-en lower than the act$al -al$e of the +ro+ert at the ti'e of the act$al taing in 2881.

E'inent do'ain is a f$nda'ental State +ower that is inse+ara%le fro' so-ereignt.

It is the =o-ern'entJs right to a++ro+riate# in the nat$re of a co'+$lsor sale to the State#

+ri-ate +ro+ert for +$%lic $se or +$r+ose.8Pﾧ <owe-er# the =o-ern'ent '$st +a theowner thereof &$st co'+ensation as consideration therefor.

In the case at %ar# the a++lica%le law as to the +oint of reconing for thedeter'ination of &$st co'+ensation is Section 28 of R.A. No. 2;4# which e"+ressl

+ro-ides that &$st co'+ensation shall %e deter'ined as of the ti'e of act$al taing. ,he

Section reads as follows:

SEC,ION 28. E'inent Do'ain. // A local go-ern'ent $nit 'a# thro$gh its chief











e"ec$ti-e and acting +$rs$ant to an ordinance# e"ercise the +ower of e'inent do'ain for

+$%lic $se# or +$r+ose or welfare for the %enefit of the +oor and the landless# $+on

+a'ent of &$st co'+ensation# +$rs$ant to the +ro-isions of the Constit$tion and +ertinent laws: 0ro-ided# howe-er# ,hat the +ower of e'inent do'ain 'a not %e

e"ercised $nless a -alid and definite offer has %een +re-io$sl 'ade to the owner# and

s$ch offer was not acce+ted: 0ro-ided# f$rther# ,hat the local go-ern'ent $nit 'ai''ediatel tae +ossession of the +ro+ert $+on the filing of the e"+ro+riation

+roceedings and $+on 'aing a de+osit with the +ro+er co$rt of at least fifteen +ercent

(29M) of the fair 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert %ased on the c$rrent ta" declaration of the +ro+ert to %e e"+ro+riated: 0ro-ided finall# ,hat# the a'o$nt to %e +aid for the

e"+ro+riated +ro+ert shall %e deter'ined % the +ro+er co$rt# %ased on the fair 'aret

-al$e at the ti'e of the taing of the +ro+ert.

,he +etitioner has 'isread o$r r$ling in ,he National 0ower Cor+. -s. Co$rt of A++eals.24Pﾧ 6e did not categoricall r$le in that case that &$st co'+ensation sho$ld %e

deter'ined as of the filing of the co'+laint. 6e e"+licitl stated therein that altho$gh the

general r$le in deter'ining &$st co'+ensation in e'inent do'ain is the -al$e of the

+ro+ert as of the date of the filing of the co'+laint# the r$le ?ad'its of an e"ce+tion:where this Co$rt fi"ed the -al$e of the +ro+ert as of the date it was taen and not at the

date of the co''ence'ent of the e"+ro+riation +roceedings.

Also# the trial co$rt followed the then go-erning +roced$ral law on the 'atter# whichwas Section 9 of R$le ; of the R$les of Co$rt# which +ro-ided as follows:

SEC. 9. Ascertain'ent of co'+ensation. // @+on the entr of the order of conde'nation#

the co$rt shall a++oint not 'ore than three () co'+etent and disinterested +ersons as

co''issioners to ascertain and re+ort to the co$rt the &$st co'+ensation for the +ro+ertso$ght to %e taen. ,he order of a++oint'ent shall designate the ti'e and +lace of the

first session of the hearing to %e held % the co''issioners and s+ecif the ti'e within

which their re+ort is to %e filed with the co$rt.

!ore than anthing else# the +arties# % a sole'n doc$'ent freel and -ol$ntaril

agreed $+on % the'# agreed to %e %o$nd % the re+ort of the co''ission and a++ro-ed

% the trial co$rt. ,he agree'ent is a contract %etween the +arties. It has the force of law

%etween the' and sho$ld %e co'+lied with in good faith. Article 2298 and 229 of theCi-il Code e"+licitl +ro-ides:

Art. 2298. O%ligations arising fro' contracts ha-e the force of law %etween the

contracting +arties and sho$ld %e co'+lied with in good faith.Art. 229. Contracts are +erfected % 'ere consent# and fro' that 'o'ent the +arties are

%o$nd not onl to the f$lfill'ent of what has %een e"+ressl sti+$lated %$t also to all the

conse5$ences which# according to their nat$re# 'a %e in ee+ing with good faith# $sageand law.

F$rther'ore# d$ring the hearing on 77 No-e'%er 288;# +etitioner did not inter+ose a

serio$s o%&ection.22Pﾧ It is therefore too late for +etitioner to 5$estion the -al$ation now

witho$t -iolating the +rinci+le of e5$ita%le esto++el. Esto++el in +ais arises when one# %

his acts# re+resentations or ad'issions# or % his own silence when he o$ght to s+ea o$t#intentionall or thro$gh c$l+a%le negligence# ind$ces another to %elie-e certain facts to







e"ist and s$ch other rightf$ll relies and acts on s$ch %elief# so that he will %e +re&$diced

if the for'er is +er'itted to den the e"istence of s$ch facts.27Pﾧ Records show that

+etitioner consented to confor' with the -al$ation reco''ended % the co''issioners.It cannot detract fro' its agree'ent now and assail correctness of the co''issionersJ

assess'ent.

Finall# while Section 1# R$le ; of the R$les of Co$rt +ro-ides that &$stco'+ensation shall %e deter'ined at the ti'e of the filing of the co'+laint for e"+ro+riation#2Pﾧ s$ch law cannot +re-ail o-er R.A. 2;4# which is a s$%stanti-e law.

21Pﾧ

6<EREFORE# finding no re-ersi%le error in the assailed &$dg'ent of the Co$rt of

A++eals in CA/=.R. CV No. 98741# the +etition in this case is here% DENIED.


SO ORDERED.

NA0OCOR - <enson =.R. No. 278883. Dece'%er 78# 2883

*. 0ardo

Facts:On !arch 72# 2884# the National 0ower Cor+oration initiated with the Regional ,rial

Co$rt# 0a'+anga# a co'+laint for e'inent do'ain for the taing for +$%lic $se of fi-e

(9) +arcels of land# owned or clai'ed % res+ondents# with a total aggregate area of

93#22 s5$are 'eters# for the e"+ansion of the N0C !e"ico S$%/Station. ,he

res+ondents# 9 co$+les# were the owners.

,he +etitioner tried to fi" the -al$e of the land %$t was 'et of a +rice of 234 to 794 +esos

d$e to the res+ondents. ,he res+ondents also filed a 'otion to dis'iss.

In the trial co$rt# the 'otion to dis'iss was 5$ashed. <owe-er# the co$rt fi"ed the

+ro-isional -al$e of the land at 0244.44 +er s5$are 'eter# for a total area of ;#774 s5'.

,he +etitioner de+osited the a'o$nt. ,he trial co$rt allowed res+ondents a 'otion to

withdraw 09#32#244.44# with a %alance of 0;84#844.44 as the +$rchase -al$e. co''issioners were then a$thori>ed % the trial co$rt to deter'ine the +ro-isional

-al$e of the land for &$st co'+ensation. ,he -al$es were in 94# 9# and 24 +er s5'

fro' ,iglao# Atien>a and Orocio.

In !a 28# 288# the trial co$rt rendered &$dg'ent fi"ing the a'o$nt of &$st

co'+ensation to %e +aid % +etitioner for the taing of the entire area of ;#774 s5$are

'eters at 0144.44 +er s5$are 'eter# with legal interest fro' Se+te'%er 22# 2884# when










+etitioner was +laced in +ossession of the land# +l$s attorneJs fees of 074#444.44# and

costs of the +roceedings.

,he CA 'erel deleted the attorneJs fees.

Iss$e: 6hat is the &$st co'+ensation for the taing of res+ondentsJ +ro+ert for thee"+ansion of the N0CJs !e"ico S$%/stationQ

<eld: 09.44 +er s5'. CA decision 'odified.

Ratio:

,he +arcels of land so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated are $ndenia%l idle# $nde-elo+ed# raw

agric$lt$ral land# %ereft of an i'+ro-e'ent. E"ce+t for the <enson fa'il# all the other

res+ondents were ad'ittedl far'er %eneficiaries $nder o+eration land transfer of theDe+art'ent of Agrarian Refor'. <owe-er# the land has %een re/classified as residential.

,he nat$re and character of the land at the ti'e of its taing is the +rinci+al criterion to

deter'ine &$st co'+ensation to the landowner.

CA fi"ed 144.44 d$e to the si'ilarit with the +rice in the ad&acent Sto. Do'ingo Village.

,he land in 5$estion# howe-er# was an $nde-elo+ed# idle land# +rinci+all agric$lt$ral in

character# tho$gh re/classified as residential. ,here was no e-idence for the -al$e. It was

e-en higher than that of the co''issionersJ -al$ation.

On the other hand# Co''issioner Atien>a reco''ended a fair 'aret -al$e at 09.44

+er s5$are 'eter. ,his a++ears to %e the closest -al$ation to the 'aret -al$e of lots in

the ad&oining f$ll de-elo+ed s$%di-ision. Considering that the s$%&ect +arcels of land

are $nde-elo+ed raw land# the +rice of 09.44 +er s5$are 'eter wo$ld a++ear to the

Co$rt as the &$st co'+ensation for the taing of s$ch raw land.

,he co$rt agreed with +etitioner that the area of the co''$nal irrigation canal consisting

of 1#348 s5$are 'eters '$st %e e"cl$ded fro' the land to %e e"+ro+riated. ,o %egin

with# it is e"cl$ded in the a'ended co'+laint. <ence# the trial co$rt and the Co$rt of

A++eals erred in incl$ding the sa'e in the area to %e taen.

,he trial co$rt erroneo$sl ordered do$%le +a'ent for #;22 s5$are 'eters of lot 9

(+ortion) in the dis+ositi-e +art of its decision# and# hence# this '$st %e deleted.

,he decision for legal interest was correct. Na+ocor was e"e'+ted fro' costs of

+roceedings.

LAND BAN OF ,<E 0<ILI00INES# +etitioner#-s.

CO@R, OF A00EALS# 0EDRO L. HA0# <EIRS OF E!ILIANO F. SAN,IA=O#

A=RIC@L,@RAL !ANA=E!EN, G DEVELO0!EN, COR0.# res+ondents.



=.R. No. 22319 Octo%er ;# 2889

DE0AR,!EN, OF A=RARIAN REFOR!# re+resented % the Secretar of Agrarian

Refor'# +etitioner#-s.

CO@R, OF A00EALS# 0EDRO L. HA0# <EIRS OF E!ILIANO F. SAN,IA=O#

A=RIC@L,@RAL !ANA=E!EN, G DEVELO0!EN, COR0.# E, AL.# res+ondents.

It has %een declared that the d$t of the co$rt to +rotect the wea and the $nder+ri-ileged

sho$ld not %e carried o$t to s$ch an e"tent as den &$stice to the landowner whene-er tr$th and &$stice ha++en to %e on his side. 2 As elo5$entl stated % *$stice Isagani Cr$>:

. . . social &$stice or an &$stice for that 'atter is for the deser-ing# whether he %e a

'illionaire in his 'ansion or a +a$+er in his ho-el. It is tr$e that# in case of reasona%le

do$%t# we are called $+on to tilt the %alance in fa-or of the +oor# to who' theConstit$tion fittingl e"tends its s'+ath and co'+assion. B$t ne-er is it &$stified to

+refer the +oor si'+l %eca$se the are +oor# or to re&ect the rich si'+l %eca$se the are

rich# for &$stice '$st alwas %e ser-ed# for +oor and rich alie# according to the 'andate

of the law. 7In this agrarian dis+$te# it is once 'ore i'+erati-e that the aforestated +rinci+les %e

a++lied in its resol$tion.Se+arate +etitions for re-iew were filed % +etitioners De+art'ent of Agrarian Refor'

(DAR) (=.R. No. 22319) and Land Ban of the 0hili++ines (=.R. No. 22327)

following the ad-erse r$ling % the Co$rt of A++eals in CA/=.R. S0 No. 1;9.<owe-er# $+on 'otion filed % +ri-ate res+ondents# the +etitions were ordered

consolidated.

0etitioners assail the decision of the Co$rt of A++eals +ro'$lgated on Octo%er 74# 2881#which granted +ri-ate res+ondents 0etition for Certiorari and !anda'$s and r$led as

follows:

6<EREFORE# +re'ises considered# the 0etition for Certiorari and !anda'$s is here%=RAN,ED:

a) DAR Ad'inistrati-e Order No. 8# Series of 2884 is declared n$ll and -oid insofar as it

+ro-ides for the o+ening of tr$st acco$nts in lie$ of de+osits in cash or %onds %) Res+ondent Land%an is ordered to i''ediatel de+osit not 'erel ear'ar#

reser-e or de+osit in tr$st with an accessi%le %an designated % res+ondent DAR

in the na'es of the following +etitioners the following a'o$nts in cash and ingo-ern'ent

financial instr$'ents within the +ara'eters of Sec. 23 (2) of RA ;;9:0 2#199#74.2 0edro L. Ha+

0 29#137.27 <eirs of E'iliano Santiago

0 29#821#27. A!ADCORc) ,he DAR/designated %an is ordered to allow the +etitioners to withdraw the a%o-e/

de+osited a'o$nts witho$t +re&$dice to the final deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation %

the +ro+er a$thorities andd) Res+ondent DAR is ordered to 2) i''ediatel cond$ct s$''ar ad'inistrati-e

+roceedings to deter'ine the &$st co'+ensation for the lands of the +etitioners gi-ing the

+etitioners 29 das fro' notice within which to s$%'it e-idence and to 7) decide the

cases within 4 das after the are s$%'itted for decision. 1



Liewise# +etitioners see the re-ersal of the Resol$tion dated *an$ar 23# 2889# 9

dening their 'otion for reconsideration.

0ri-ate res+ondents are landowners whose landholdings were ac5$ired % the DAR ands$%&ected to transfer sche'es to 5$alified %eneficiaries $nder the Co'+rehensi-e

Agrarian Refor' Law (CARL# Re+$%lic Act No. ;;9).

Aggrie-ed % the alleged la+ses of the DAR and the Land%an with res+ect to the-al$ation and +a'ent of co'+ensation for their land +$rs$ant to the +ro-isions of RA

;;9# +ri-ate res+ondents filed with this Co$rt a 0etition for Certiorari and !anda'$s

with +raer for +reli'inar 'andator in&$nction. 0ri-ate res+ondents 5$estioned the-alidit of DAR Ad'inistrati-e Order No. ;# Series of 2887 ; and DAR Ad'inistrati-e

Order No. 8# Series of 2884# and so$ght to co'+el the DAR to e"+edite the +ending

s$''ar ad'inistrati-e +roceedings to finall deter'ine the &$st co'+ensation of their

+ro+erties# and the Land%an to de+osit in cash and %onds the a'o$nts res+ecti-elear'ared# reser-ed and de+osited in tr$st acco$nts for +ri-ate res+ondents# and to

allow the' to withdraw the sa'e.

,hro$gh a Resol$tion of the Second Di-ision dated Fe%r$ar 8# 2881# this Co$rt referred

the +etition to res+ondent Co$rt of A++eals for +ro+er deter'ination and dis+osition.As fo$nd % res+ondent co$rt # the following are $ndis+$ted:

0etitioner 0edro Ha+ alleges that (o)n 1 Se+te'%er 2887 the transfer certificates of title(,C,s) of +etitioner Ha+ were totall cancelled % the Registrar of Deeds of Lete and

were transferred in the na'es of far'er %eneficiaries collecti-el# %ased on the re5$est of

the DAR together with a certification of the Land%an that the s$' of 09#. and028#3;8.91 ha-e %een ear'ared for Landowner 0edro L. Ha+ for the +arcels of lands

co-ered % ,C, Nos. ;737 and ;73# res+ecti-el# and iss$ed in lie$ thereof ,C/9; and

,C/9;7# res+ecti-el# in the na'es of listed %eneficiaries (ANNEES C G D)

witho$t notice to +etitioner Ha+ and witho$t co'+ling with the re5$ire'ent of Section2; (e) of RA ;;9 to de+osit the co'+ensation in cash and Land%an %onds in an

accessi%le %an. (Rollo# +. ;).

,he a%o-e allegations are not dis+$ted % an of the res+ondents.0etitioner <eirs of E'iliano Santiago allege that the heirs of E'iliano F. Santiago are the

owners of a +arcel of land located at La$r# N@EVA ECI*A with an area of 23.9;29

hectares co-ered % ,C, No. N,/;498 of the registr of Deeds of N$e-a Eci&a#registered in the na'e of the late E'iliano F. Santiago that in No-e'%er and Dece'%er

2884# witho$t notice to the +etitioners# the Land%an re5$ired and the %eneficiaries

e"ec$ted Act$al tillers Deed of @ndertaing (ANNE B) to +a rentals to the

LandBan for the $se of their far'lots e5$i-alent to at least 79M of the net har-est thaton 71 Octo%er 2882 the DAR Regional Director iss$ed an order directing the Land%an

to +a the landowner directl or thro$gh the esta%lish'ent of a tr$st f$nd in the a'o$nt

of 029#137.27# that on 71 Fe%r$ar 2887# the Land%an reser-ed in tr$st 029#137.27 inthe na'e of E'iliano F. Santiago. (ANNE E Rollo#

+. ) that the %eneficiaries sto++ed +aing rentals to the landowners after the signed the

Act$al ,illers Deed of @ndertaing co''itting the'sel-es to +a rentals to theLandBan (Rollo# +. 2).

,he a%o-e allegations are not dis+$ted % the res+ondents e"ce+t that res+ondent

Land%an clai's 2) that it was res+ondent DAR# not Land%an which re5$ired the

e"ec$tion of Act$al ,illers Deed of @ndertaing (A,D@# for %re-it) and 7) that



res+ondent Land%an# altho$gh ar'ed with the A,D@# did not collect an a'o$nt as

rental fro' the s$%stit$ting %eneficiaries (Rollo# +. 88).

0etitioner Agric$lt$ral !anage'ent and De-elo+'ent Cor+oration (A!ADCOR# for %re-it) alleges with res+ect to its +ro+erties located in San Francisco# K$e>on that

the +ro+erties of A!ADCOR in San Francisco# K$e>on consist of a +arcel of land

co-ered % ,C, No. 121 with an area of 748.8729 hectares and another +arcel co-ered % ,C, No. 2437 with an area of 2;.;238 hectares that a s$''ar ad'inistrati-e

+roceeding to deter'ine co'+ensation of the +ro+ert co-ered % ,C, No. 121 was

cond$cted % the DARAB in K$e>on Cit witho$t notice to the landowner that adecision was rendered on 71 No-e'%er 2887 (ANNE F) fi"ing the co'+ensation for

the +arcel of land co-ered % ,C, No. 121 with an area of 748.8729 hectares at

07#;3#7;.1 and ordering the Land%an to +a or esta%lish a tr$st acco$nt for said

a'o$nt in the na'e of A!ADCOR and that the tr$st acco$nt in the a'o$nt of 07#;3#7;.1 fi"ed in the decision was esta%lished % adding 02#83;#138. to the first

tr$st acco$nt esta%lished on 28 Dece'%er 2882 (ANNE =). 6ith res+ect to +etitioner

A!ADCORs +ro+ert in ,a%aco# Al%a# it is alleged that the +ro+ert of A!ADCOR in

,a%aco# Al%a is co-ered % ,C, No. ,/71;; of the Register of Deeds of Al%a with anarea of 2#;78.193 hectares that e'anci+ation +atents were iss$ed co-ering an area of

42.3888 hectares which were registered on 29 Fe%r$ar 2833 %$t no action was taenthereafter % the DAR to fi" the co'+ensation for said land that on 72 A+ril 288# a tr$st

acco$nt in the na'e of A!ADCOR was esta%lished in the a'o$nt of 027#71#72.3#

three notices of ac5$isition ha-ing %een +re-io$sl re&ected % A!ADCOR. (Rollo# ++.3/8)

,he a%o-e allegations are not dis+$ted % the res+ondents e"ce+t that res+ondent

Land%an clai's that +etitioner failed to +artici+ate in the DARAB +roceedings (land

-al$ation case) des+ite d$e notice to it (Rollo# +. 244). 3

0ri-ate res+ondents arg$ed that Ad'inistrati-e Order No. 8# Series of 2884 was iss$edwitho$t &$risdiction and with gra-e a%$se of discretion %eca$se it +er'its the o+ening of

tr$st acco$nts % the Land%an# in lie$ of de+ositing in cash or %onds in an accessi%le

%an designated % the DAR# the co'+ensation for the land %efore it is taen and thetitles are cancelled as +ro-ided $nder Section 2;(e) of RA ;;9. 8 0ri-ate res+ondents

also assail the fact that the DAR and the Land%an 'erel ear'ared# de+osited in

tr$st or reser-ed the co'+ensation in their na'es as landowners des+ite the clear

'andate that %efore taing +ossession of the +ro+ert# the co'+ensation '$st %ede+osited in cash or in %onds. 24

0etitioner DAR# howe-er# 'aintained that Ad'inistrati-e Order No. 8 is a -alid e"erciseof its r$le/'aing +ower +$rs$ant to Section 18 of RA ;;9. 22 !oreo-er# the DAR

'aintained that the iss$ance of the Certificate of De+osit % the Land%an was a

s$%stantial co'+liance with Section 2;(e) of RA ;;9 and the r$ling in the case of Association of S'all Landowners in the 0hili++ines# Inc.# et al. -s. <on. Secretar of

Agrarian Refor'# =.R. No. 317# *$l 21# 2838 (29 SCRA 1). 27

For its +art# +etitioner Land%an declared that the iss$ance of the Certificates of De+osits



was in consonance with Circ$lar Nos. 78# 78/A and 91 of the Land Registration A$thorit

where the words reser-edde+osited were also $sed. 2

On Octo%er 74# 2881# the res+ondent co$rt rendered the assailed decision in fa-or of

+ri-ate res+ondents. 210etitioners filed a 'otion for reconsideration %$t res+ondent co$rt

denied the sa'e. 29

<ence# the instant +etitions.

On !arch 74# 2889# +ri-ate res+ondents filed a 'otion to dis'iss the +etition in =.R. No.22319 alleging that the a++eal has no 'erit and is 'erel intended to dela the finalit

of the a++ealed decision. 2; ,he Co$rt# howe-er# denied the 'otion and instead re5$ired

the res+ondents to file their co''ents. 2

0etitioners s$%'it that res+ondent co$rt erred in (2) declaring as n$ll and -oid DAR Ad'inistrati-e Order No. 8# Series of 2884# insofar as it +ro-ides for the o+ening of tr$st

acco$nts in lie$ of de+osit in cash or in %onds# and (7) in holding that +ri-ate res+ondents

are entitled as a 'atter of right to the i''ediate and +ro-isional release of the a'o$nts

de+osited in tr$st +ending the final resol$tion of the cases it has filed for &$stco'+ensation.

Anent the first assign'ent of error# +etitioners 'aintain that the word de+osit as $sed inSection 2;(e) of RA ;;9 referred 'erel to the act of de+ositing and in no wa e"cl$ded

the o+ening of a tr$st acco$nt as a for' of de+osit. ,h$s# in o+ting for the o+ening of a

tr$st acco$nt as the acce+ta%le for' of de+osit thro$gh Ad'inistrati-e Circ$lar No. 8# +etitioner DAR did not co''it an gra-e a%$se of discretion since it 'erel e"ercised its

+ower to +ro'$lgate r$les and reg$lations in i'+le'enting the declared +olicies of RA

;;9.

,he contention is $ntena%le. Section 2;(e) of RA ;;9 +ro-ides as follows:Sec. 2;. 0roced$re for Ac5$isition of 0ri-ate Lands

""" """ """

(e) @+on recei+t % the landowner of the corres+onding +a'ent or# in case of re&ectionor no res+onse fro' the landowner# $+on the de+osit with an accessi%le %an designated

% the DAR of the co'+ensation in cash or in LB0 %onds in accordance with this Act# the

DAR shall tae i''ediate +ossession of the land and shall re5$est the +ro+er Register of Deeds to iss$e a ,ransfer Certificate of ,itle (,C,) in the na'e of the Re+$%lic of the

0hili++ines. . . . (e'+hasis s$++lied)

It is -er e"+licit therefro' that the de+osit '$st %e 'ade onl in cash or in LB0

%onds. Nowhere does it a++ear nor can it %e inferred that the de+osit can %e 'ade in another for'. If it were the intention to incl$de a tr$st acco$nt a'ong the -alid 'odes of

de+osit# that sho$ld ha-e %een 'ade e"+ress# or at least# 5$alifing words o$ght to ha-e

a++eared fro' which it can %e fairl ded$ced that a tr$st acco$nt is allowed. In s$'#there is no a'%ig$it in Section 2;(e) of RA ;;9 to warrant an e"+anded constr$ction of

the ter' de+osit.

,he concl$si-e effect of ad'inistrati-e constr$ction is not a%sol$te. Action of anad'inistrati-e agenc 'a %e dist$r%ed or set aside % the &$dicial de+art'ent if there is

an error of law# a gra-e a%$se of +ower or lac of &$risdiction or gra-e a%$se of discretion

clearl conflicting with either the letter or the s+irit of a legislati-e enact'ent. 23 In this

regard# it '$st %e stressed that the f$nction of +ro'$lgating r$les and reg$lations 'a %e



legiti'atel e"ercised onl for the +$r+ose of carring the +ro-isions of the law into

effect. ,he +ower of ad'inistrati-e agencies is th$s confined to i'+le'enting the law or

+$tting it into effect. Corollar to this is that ad'inistrati-e reg$lations cannot e"tendthe law and a'end a legislati-e enact'ent# 28 for settled is the r$le that ad'inistrati-e

reg$lations '$st %e in har'on with the +ro-isions of the law. And in case there is a

discre+anc %etween the %asic law and an i'+le'enting r$le or reg$lation# it is thefor'er that +re-ails. 74

In the +resent s$it# the DAR clearl o-erste++ed the li'its of its +ower to enact r$les andreg$lations when it iss$ed Ad'inistrati-e Circ$lar No. 8. ,here is no %asis in allowing

the o+ening of a tr$st acco$nt in %ehalf of the landowner as co'+ensation for his +ro+ert

%eca$se# as heretofore disc$ssed# Section 2;(e) of RA ;;9 is -er s+ecific that the

de+osit '$st %e 'ade onl in cash or in LB0 %onds. In the sa'e -ein# +etitionerscannot in-oe LRA Circ$lar Nos. 78# 78/A and 91 %eca$se these i'+le'enting

reg$lations cannot o$tweigh the clear +ro-ision of the law. Res+ondent co$rt therefore

did not co''it an error in striing down Ad'inistrati-e Circ$lar No. 8 for %eing n$ll

and -oid.0roceeding to the cr$cial iss$e of whether or not +ri-ate res+ondents are entitled to

withdraw the a'o$nts de+osited in tr$st in their %ehalf +ending the final resol$tion of thecases in-ol-ing the final -al$ation of their +ro+erties# +etitioners assert the negati-e.

,he contention is +re'ised on the alleged distinction %etween the de+osit of

co'+ensation $nder Section 2;(e) of RA ;;9 and +a'ent of final co'+ensation as +ro-ided $nder Section 23 72 of the sa'e law. According to +etitioners# the right of the

landowner to withdraw the a'o$nt de+osited in his %ehalf +ertains onl to the final

-al$ation as agreed $+on % the landowner# the DAR and the LB0 or that ad&$dged % the

co$rt. It has no reference to a'o$nt de+osited in the tr$st acco$nt +$rs$ant to Section2;(e) in case of re&ection % the landowner %eca$se the latter a'o$nt is onl +ro-isional

and intended 'erel to sec$re +ossession of the +ro+ert +ending final -al$ation. ,o

f$rther %olster the contention +etitioners cite the following +rono$nce'ents in the case of Association of S'all Landowners in the 0hil. Inc. -s. Secretar of Agrarian Refor'. 77

,he last 'a&or challenge to CAR0 is that the landowner is di-ested of his +ro+ert e-en

%efore act$al +a'ent to hi' in f$ll of &$st co'+ensation# in contra-ention of a well/acce+ted +rinci+le of e'inent do'ain.

,he CAR0 Law# for its +art conditions the transfer of +ossession and ownershi+ of the

land to the go-ern'ent on recei+t % the landowner of the corres+onding +a'ent or the

de+osit % the DAR of the co'+ensation in cash or LB0 %onds with an accessi%le %an.@ntil then# title also re'ains with the landowner. No o$tright change of ownershi+ is

conte'+lated either.

<ence the arg$'ent that the assailed 'eas$res -iolate d$e +rocess % ar%itrariltransferring title %efore the land is f$ll +aid for '$st also %e re&ected.

Nota%l# howe-er# the aforecited case was $sed % res+ondent co$rt in discarding

+etitioners assertion as it fo$nd that:. . . des+ite the re-ol$tionar character of the e"+ro+riation en-isioned $nder RA ;;9

which led the S$+re'e Co$rt# in the case of Association of S'all Landowners in the 0hil.

Inc. -s. Secretar of Agrarian Refor' (29 SCRA 1)# to concl$de that +a'ents of the

&$st co'+ensation is not alwas re5$ired to %e 'ade f$ll in 'one e-en as the



S$+re'e Co$rt ad'its in the sa'e case that the traditional 'edi$' for the +a'ent of

&$st co'+ensation is 'one and no other the S$+re'e Co$rt in said case did not

a%andon the recogni>ed r$le . . . that title to the +ro+ert e"+ro+riated shall +ass fro' theowner to the e"+ro+riator onl $+on f$ll +a'ent of the &$st co'+ensation. 7(E'+hasis

s$++lied)

6e agree with the o%ser-ations of res+ondent co$rt. ,he r$ling in the Association case'erel recogni>ed the e"traordinar nat$re of the e"+ro+riation to %e $ndertaen $nder

RA ;;9 there% allowing a de-iation fro' the traditional 'ode of +a'ent of

co'+ensation and recogni>ed +a'ent other than in cash. It did not# howe-er# dis+ensewith the settled r$le that there '$st %e f$ll +a'ent of &$st co'+ensation %efore the title

to the e"+ro+riated +ro+ert is transferred.

,he atte'+t to 'ae a distinction %etween the de+osit of co'+ensation $nder Section

2;(e) of RA ;;9 and deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation $nder Section 23 is$nacce+ta%le. ,o withhold the right of the landowners to a++ro+riate the a'o$nts alread

de+osited in their %ehalf as co'+ensation for their +ro+erties si'+l %eca$se the

re&ected the DARs -al$ation# and notwithstanding that the ha-e alread %een de+ri-ed

of the +ossession and $se of s$ch +ro+erties# is an o++ressi-e e"ercise of e'inent do'ain.,he irresisti%le e"+ro+riation of +ri-ate res+ondents +ro+erties was +ainf$l eno$gh for

the'. B$t +etitioner DAR r$%%ed it in all the 'ore % withholding that which rightf$ll %elongs to +ri-ate res+ondents in e"change for the taing# $nder an a$thorit (the

Association case) that is# howe-er# 'is+laced. ,his is 'iser twice %estowed on +ri-ate

res+ondents# which the Co$rt '$st rectif.<ence# we find it $nnecessar to disting$ish %etween +ro-isional co'+ensation $nder

Section 2;(e) and final co'+ensation $nder Section 23 for +$r+oses of e"ercising the

landowners right to a++ro+riate the sa'e. ,he i''ediate effect in %oth sit$ations is the

sa'e# the landowner is de+ri-ed of the $se and +ossession of his +ro+ert for which hesho$ld %e fairl and i''ediatel co'+ensated. Fittingl# we reiterate the cardinal r$le

that:

. . . within the conte"t of the States inherent +ower of e'inent do'ain# &$st co'+ensation'eans not onl the correct deter'ination of the a'o$nt to %e +aid to the owner of the

land %$t also the +a'ent of the land within a reasona%le ti'e fro' its taing. 6itho$t

+ro'+t +a'ent#co'+ensation cannot %e considered &$st for the +ro+ert owner is'ade to s$ffer the conse5$ence of %eing i''ediatel de+ri-ed of his land while %eing

'ade to wait for a decade or 'ore %efore act$all recei-ing the a'o$nt necessar to co+e

with his loss. 71

,he +ro'$lgation of the Association decision endea-ored to re'o-e all legal o%stacles

in the i'+le'entation of the Co'+rehensi-e Agrarian Refor' 0rogra' and clear the wa

for the tr$e freedo' of the far'er. 79 B$t des+ite this# cases in-ol-ing its i'+le'entationcontin$e to '$lti+l and clog the co$rts docets. Ne-ertheless# we are still o+ti'istic that

the goal of totall e'anci+ating the far'ers fro' their %ondage will %e attained in d$e

ti'e. It '$st %e stressed# howe-er# that in the +$rs$it of this o%&ecti-e# -igilance o-er therights of the landowners is e5$all i'+ortant %eca$se social &$stice cannot %e in-oed to

tra'+le on the rights of +ro+ert owners# who $nder o$r Constit$tion and laws are also

entitled to +rotection. 7;



6<EREFORE# the foregoing +re'ises considered# the +etition is here% DENIED for

lac of 'erit and the a++ealed decision is AFFIR!ED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

NA,IONAL 0O6ER COR0.# 0etitioner#

-s.S0O@SES NORBER,O AND *OSEFINA DELA CR@# !E,ROBAN# Das'arias#

Ca-ite Branch# REHNALDO FERRER# and S.. DHNA!ICS !AN@FAC,@RER

COR0.# Res+ondents.

,he Case

In this +etition for re-iew $nder R$le 19 of the R$les of Co$rt# +etitioner National 0ower

Cor+oration (NA0OCOR) sees to ann$l and set aside the No-e'%er 23# 7447 Decision2of the Co$rt of A++eals (CA) in CA/=.R. CV No. ;11;# which affir'ed the Dece'%er

73# 2888 Order 7 of the I'$s# Ca-ite Regional ,rial Co$rt (R,C)# Branch in Ci-il

Case No. 232;/83# which fi"ed the fair 'aret -al$e of the e"+ro+riated lots at 0h0

24#444.44 +er s5$are 'eter.,he Facts

0etitioner NA0OCOR is a go-ern'ent/owned and controlled cor+oration created $nder Re+$%lic Act No. ;89# as a'ended# with the 'andate of de-elo+ing hdroelectric

+ower# +rod$cing trans'ission lines# and de-elo+ing hdroelectric +ower thro$gho$t the

0hili++ines. NA0OCOR decided to ac5$ire an ease'ent of right/of/wa o-er +ortions of land within the areas of Das'arias and I'$s# Ca-ite for the constr$ction and

'aintenance of the +ro+osed Das'arias/a+ote 74 V ,rans'ission Line 0ro&ect.

On No-e'%er 7# 2883# +etitioner filed a Co'+laint1 for e'inent do'ain and

e"+ro+riation of an ease'ent of right/of/wa against res+ondents as registered owners of the +arcels of land so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated# which were co-ered % ,ransfer

Certificates of ,itle (,C,) Nos. ,/27# ,/;23;1# and ,/19173. ,he affected areas

were 92.99# 23.79# and 21.;79 s5$are 'eters# res+ecti-el# or a total of 31.179 s5$are'eters.

After res+ondents filed their res+ecti-e answers to +etitionerJs Co'+laint# +etitioner

de+osited 0h0 9#33.94 to co-er the +ro-isional -al$e of the land in accordance withSection 7# R$le ; of the R$les of Co$rt.9 ,hen# on Fe%r$ar 79# 2888# +etitioner filed an

@rgent E"/0arte !otion for the Iss$ance of a 6rit of 0ossession# which the trial co$rt

granted in its !arch 8# 2888 Order. ,he trial co$rt iss$ed a 6rit of 0ossession o-er the

lots owned % res+ondents s+o$ses de la Cr$> and res+ondent Ferrer on !arch 24# 2888and A+ril 27# 2888# res+ecti-el.

<owe-er# the trial co$rt dro++ed the Dela Cr$> s+o$ses and their 'ortgagee# !etro%an#

as +arties/defendants in its !a 22# 2888 Order #; in -iew of the !otion to Inter-ene filed % res+ondentinter-enor Virgilio !. Sa$log# who clai'ed ownershi+ of the land so$ght

to %e e"+ro+riated fro' res+ondents s+o$ses Dela Cr$>.

On *$ne 71# 2888# the trial co$rt ter'inated the +re/trial in so far as res+ondent Ferrer was concerned# considering that the sole iss$e was the a'o$nt of &$st co'+ensation# and

iss$ed an Order directing the constit$tion of a Board of Co''issioners with res+ect to

the +ro+ert of res+ondent S.. Dna'ics. ,he trial co$rt designated !r. La'%erto C.

0arra# Ca-ite 0ro-incial Assessor# as chair'an# while +etitioner no'inated the !$nici+al
















Assessor of Das'arias# !r. Regalado ,. Andaa# as 'e'%er. Res+ondent S..

Dna'ics did not no'inate an co''issioner.

As to the &$st co'+ensation for the +ro+ert of Sa$log# s$ccessor/in/interest of the DelaCr$> s+o$ses# the trial co$rt ordered the latter and +etitioner to s$%'it their co'+ro'ise

agree'ent.

,he co''issioners cond$cted an oc$lar ins+ection of S.. Dna'icsJ +ro+ert# and onOcto%er 3# 2888# the s$%'itted a re+ort to the trial co$rt# with the following +ertinent

findings:

In arri-ing o$r sicP esti'ate of -al$es o$r st$dies and analsis incl$de the following:I. 0RO0ER,H LOCA,ION

As shown to $s on/site d$ring o$r oc$lar ins+ection# the a++raised +ro+ert is land onl#

identified as the area affected % the constr$ction of the National 0ower Cor+oration

(N0C) Das'arias/a+ote 74V ,rans'ission Lines 0ro&ect# located within BarangaSalitran# Das'arias# Ca-ite registered in the na'e of S.. Dna'icsP !an$fact$rerP#

Cor+.# $nder ,ransfer Certificate of ,itle No. ,/19173.

II. NEI=<BOR<OOD DESCRI0,ION

,he neigh%orhood +artic$larl in the i''ediate -icinit is within a 'i"ed residential andco''ercial area# sit$ated in the northern section of the !$nici+alit of Das'arias

which was trans-ersed sicP % =en. E'ilio Ag$inaldo <ighwa whereP se-eralresidential s$%di-isions and co''ercial esta%lish'entsP are located.

Considered as so'e of the i'+ortant i'+ro-e'ents onP the -icinit are (within 2.9

radi$s)Orchard =olf and Co$ntr Cl$%

=olden Cit S$%di-ision

So$thfield S$%di-isions

Arcontica S+orts Co'+le"!a"Js Resta$rant

6alter'art Sho++ing !all

@!C !edical Center Se-eral sa-ings and Co''ercial Bans as well as se-eral =asoline stations.

Co''$nit centers s$ch as# sicP ch$rches# +$%lic 'arets# sho++ing 'alls# %ans and

gasoline stations are easil accessi%le fro' the s$%&ect real +ro+erties.Con-enience facilities s$ch as electricit# tele+hone ser-ice as well as +i+e +ota%le water

s$++l sste' are all a-aila%le along =en. E'ilio Ag$inaldo <ighwa.

0$%lic trans+ortation consisting of +assenger &ee+nes and %$ses as well ta"ica%s are sicP

reg$larl a-aila%le along =en. E. E'ilio Ag$inaldo <ighwa sicP." " " "

IV. <I=<ES, AND !OS, 0ROFI,ABLE @SE

" " " ",he s$%&ect +ro+ert is sit$ated within the residentialco''ercial >one and considering

the area affected and taing into consideration# their location# sha+e# lot to+ogra+h#

accessi%ilit and the +redo'inant $ses of +ro+erties in the neigh%orhood# as well as thetrend of land de-elo+'ents in the -icinit# we are on the o+inion that the highest and

'ost +rofita%le $se of the +ro+ert is good for residential and co''ercial +$r+oses.

V. VAL@A,ION OF LAND !ARE, DA,A

" " " "



Based on the analsis of data gathered and 'aing the +ro+er ad&$st'ents with res+ect to

the location# area# sha+e# accessi%ilit# and the highest and %est $se of the s$%&ect

+ro+erties# it is the o+inion of the herein co''issioners that the fair 'aret -al$e of thes$%&ect real +ro+erties is 024#444.44 +er s5$are 'eter# as of this date# Octo%er 49# 2888.

,h$s# %oth co''issioners reco''ended that the +ro+ert of S.. Dna'ics to %e

e"+ro+riated % +etitioner %e -al$ed at 0h0 24#444.44 +er s5$are 'eter.,he records show that the co''issioners did not afford the +arties the o++ort$nit to

introd$ce e-idence in their fa-or# nor did the cond$ct hearings %efore the'. In fact# the

co''issioners did not iss$e notices to the +arties to attend hearings nor +ro-ide theconcerned +arties the o++ort$nit to arg$e their res+ecti-e ca$ses.

@+on the s$%'ission of the co''issionersJ re+ort# +etitioner was not notified of the

co'+letion or filing of it nor gi-en an o++ort$nit to file its o%&ections to it.

On Dece'%er 2# 2888# res+ondent Ferrer filed a 'otion ado+ting in toto theco''issionersJ re+ort with res+ect to the -al$ation of his +ro+ert.3 On Dece'%er 73#

2888# the trial co$rt conse5$entl iss$ed the Order a++ro-ing the co''issionersJ re+ort#

and granted res+ondent FerrerJs 'otion to ado+t the s$%&ect re+ort. S$%se5$entl# the &$st

co'+ensation for the dis+arate +ro+erties to %e e"+ro+riated % +etitioner for its +ro&ectwas $nifor'l +egged at 0h0 24#444.44 +er s5$are 'eter.

Incidentall# on Fe%r$ar 22# 7444# res+ondent S.. Dna'ics filed a 'otion infor'ingthe trial co$rt that in addition to the +ortion of its +ro+ert co-ered % ,C, No. ,/19173

so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated % +etitioner# the latter also too +ossession of an 3.99/s5$are

'eter +ortion of S.. Dna'icsJ +ro+ert co-ered % ,C, No. 94131 for the sa'e +$r+oseTTto ac5$ire an ease'ent of right/of/wa for the constr$ction and 'aintenance of

the +ro+osed Das'arias/a+ote 74 V ,rans'ission Line 0ro&ect. Res+ondent S..

Dna'ics +raed that said +ortion %e incl$ded in the co'+$tation of the &$st

co'+ensation to %e +aid % +etitioner.On the sa'e date# the I'$s# Ca-ite R,C granted S.. Dna'icsJ 'otion to ha-e the 3.99/

s5$are 'eter +ortion of its +ro+ert incl$ded in the co'+$tation of &$st

co'+ensation.2aw+hi2.net,he R$ling of the Regional ,rial Co$rt

As +re-io$sl stated# in its Dece'%er 73# 2888 Order# the trial co$rt fi"ed the &$st

co'+ensation to %e +aid % +etitioner at 0h0 24#444.44 +er s5$are 'eter. ,he rele-ant +ortion of the said Order reads as follows:

On Octo%er 3# 2888# a Co''issionerJs Val$ation Re+ort was s$%'itted in Co$rt % the

0ro-incial Assessor of Ca-ite and % the !$nici+al Assessor of Das'arias# Ca-ite.

K$oting fro' said Re+ort# th$s:Based on the analsis of data gathered and 'aing the +ro+er ad&$st'ents with res+ect

to location# area# sha+e# accessi%ilit# and the highest and %est $se of the s$%&ect

+ro+erties# it is the o+inion of herein co''issioners that the fair 'aret -al$e of thes$%&ect real +ro+erties is U24#444.44 +er s5$are 'eter# as of this date# Octo%er 49# 2888.

Finding the o+inion of the Co''issioners to %e in order# this Co$rt a++ro-es the sa'e.

Accordingl# the !otion filed % res+ondentP Renaldo Ferrer ado+ting said -al$ationre+ort is granted.

SO ORDERED. 8

On *an$ar 74# 7444# +etitioner filed a !otion for Reconsideration of the

a%o-e'entioned Order# %$t said 'otion was denied in the trial co$rtJs !arch 7# 7444









Order# which states that:

,he %asis of +etitionerP in seeing to set aside the Order dated Dece'%er 73# 2888 is its

clai' that the Co''issionersJ Re+ort fi"ing the &$st co'+ensation at 024#444.44 +er s5$are 'eter is e"or%itant# $n&$st and $nreasona%le. ,o s$++ort its contention# +etitionerP

in-oed 0ro-incial A++raisal Co''ittee Re+ort No. 43/89 dated Octo%er 79# 2889 which

set the &$st co'+ensation of lots along =en. Ag$inaldo <ighwa at 0#444.44 +er s5.'.onl.

B wa of o++osition# res+ondentP Dna'ics co$ntered that the -al$ation of a lot $nder

e"+ro+riation is reconed at the ti'e of its taing % the go-ern'ent. And since in thecase at %ar# the writ of +ossession was iss$ed on !arch 24# 2888# the +rice or -al$e for

2888 '$st %e the one to %e considered.

6e find for the defendant.

,he 0AR Resol$tion all$ded to % +etitionerP was +assed in 2889 or fo$r (1) ears%eforeP the lot in 5$estion was taen o-er % the go-ern'ent. ,his e"+lains wh the

+rice or cost of the land has considera%l increased. Besides# the -al$ation of 024#444.44

+er s5.'. was the one reco''ended % the co''issioner designated % +etitionerP itself

and conc$rred in % the 0ro-incial Assessor of Ca-ite.Be that as it 'a# the !otion for Reconsideration is denied.

SO ORDERED.24,he R$ling of the Co$rt of A++eals

@nsatisfied with the a'o$nt of &$st co'+ensation# +etitioner filed an a++eal %efore the

CA. In resol-ing the a++eal# the CA 'ade the following findings:6e find nothing on record which wo$ld warrant the re-ersal of the Order dated

Dece'%er 73# 2888 of the co$rt a 5$o.

0etitionerP s$%'its that the order of the co$rt a 5$o ado+ting the Co''issioners sicP

Val$ation Re+ort# fi"ing the &$st co'+ensation for the s$%&ect lots in the a'o$nt of 024#444.44 +er s5$are 'eter is e"hor%itant sicP# highl s+ec$lati-e and witho$t an

%asis. In s$++ort thereto# +etitionerP +resented %efore the co$rt a 5$o the 0ro-incial

A++raisal Co''ittee of Ca-ite Resol$tion No. 43/89 " " " which fi"ed the fair 'aret-al$e of lots located along =en. Ag$inaldo <ighwa# Das'arias# Ca-ite# which

incidentall incl$des the lots s$%&ect of this +roceedings sicP# in the a'o$nt of 0#444.44

+er s5$are 'eter.6e do not agree.

,he nat$re and character of the land at the ti'e of its taing is the +rinci+al criterion to

deter'ine &$st co'+ensation to the land owner. (National 0ower Cor+oration -s.

<enson# 44 SCRA 92/9;).,he CA then cited Section 1# R$le ; of the 288 R$les of Ci-il 0roced$re22 to e"+lain

wh Resol$tion No. 43/89 co$ld not %e $sed as aP %asis for deter'ining the &$st

co'+ensation of the s$%&ect lots# which % reason of the changed co''ercial conditionsin the -icinit# co$ld ha-e increased its -al$e greater than its -al$e three () ears ago.

,he said resol$tion# which fi"ed the fair 'aret -al$e of the lots# incl$ding that of the

dis+$ted lots along =en. Ag$inaldo <ighwa# was a++ro-ed on Octo%er 79# 2889# while +etitioner filed the Co'+laint for the e"+ro+riation of the dis+$ted lots on No-e'%er 7#

2883# or 'ore than three () ears had ela+sed after said resol$tion was a++ro-ed.

Reflecting on the co''issionersJ re+ort# the CA noted that since the +ro+ert $nderwent

i'+ortant changes and i'+ro-e'ents# the highest and 'ost +rofita%le $se of the







+ro+ert is good for residential and co''ercial +$r+oses.

As regards the co''issionersJ fail$re to cond$ct a hearing to gi-e the +arties the

o++ort$nit to +resent their res+ecti-e e-idence# as alleged % +etitioner# the CA o+inedthat tPhe filing % +etitionerP of a 'otion for reconsideration accorded it a'+le

o++ort$nit to dis+$te the findings of the co''issioners# so that +etitionerP was as f$ll

heard as there 'ight ha-e %een hearing act$all taen +lace " " ".,he CA $lti'atel rendered its &$dg'ent# as follows:

6<EREFORE# +re'ises considered# the +resent a++eal is here% DIS!ISSED for lac

of 'erit. ,he Order dated Dece'%er 73# 2888 and !arch 7# 7444 of the co$rt a 5$o arehere% AFFIR!ED % this Co$rt.

SO ORDERED.27

Significantl# +etitioner did not file a !otion for Reconsideration of the CA No-e'%er

23# 7447 Decision# %$t it directl filed a +etition for re-iew %efore $s.,he Iss$es

In this +etition for re-iew# the iss$es are the following:

0E,I,IONER 6AS DENIED D@E 0ROCESS 6<EN I, 6AS NO, ALLO6ED ,O

0RESEN, EVIDENCE ON ,<E REASONABLE VAL@E OF ,<E E0RO0RIA,ED0RO0ER,H BEFORE ,<E BOARD OF CO!!ISSIONERS.

,<E VAL@A,ION OF *@S, CO!0ENSA,ION <EREIN 6AS NO, BASED FRO!,<E EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND O,<ER A@,<EN,IC DOC@!EN,S.2

,he Co$rtJs R$ling

6e find this +etition 'eritorio$s.It is %eond 5$estion that +etitions for re-iew 'a onl raise 5$estions of law which '$st

%e distinctl set forth21th$s# this Co$rt is 'andated to onl consider +$rel legal

5$estions in this +etition# $nless called for % e"traordinar circ$'stances.

In this case# +etitioner raises the iss$e of denial of d$e +rocess %eca$se it was allegedlde+ri-ed of the o++ort$nit to +resent its e-idence on the &$st co'+ensation of +ro+erties

it wanted to e"+ro+riate# and the s$fficienc of the legal %asis or %ases for the trial co$rtJs

Order on the 'atter of &$st co'+ensation. @n5$estiona%l# a +etition for re-iew $nder R$le 19 of the R$les of Co$rt is the +ro+er -ehicle to raise the iss$es in 5$estion %efore

this Co$rt.

In -iew of the significance of the iss$es raised in this +etition# %eca$se this case in-ol-esthe e"+endit$re of +$%lic f$nds for a clear +$%lic +$r+ose# this Co$rt will o-erloo the

fact that +etitioner did not file a !otion for Reconsideration of the CA No-e'%er 23#

7447 Decision# and %r$sh aside this technicalit in fa-or of resol-ing this case on the

'erits.First Iss$e: 0etitioner was de+ri-ed of d$e +rocess when it was not gi-en the o++ort$nit

to +resent e-idence %efore the co''issioners

It is $ndis+$ted that the co''issioners failed to afford the +arties the o++ort$nit tointrod$ce e-idence in their fa-or# cond$ct hearings %efore the'# iss$e notices to the

+arties to attend hearings# and +ro-ide the o++ort$nit for the +arties to arg$e their

res+ecti-e ca$ses. It is also $ndis+$ted that +etitioner was not notified of the co'+letionor filing of the co''issionersJ re+ort# and that +etitioner was also not gi-en an

o++ort$nit to file its o%&ections to the said re+ort.

A re/e"a'ination of the +ertinent +ro-isions on e"+ro+riation# $nder R$le ; of the R$les

of Co$rt# re-eals the following:









SEC. ;. 0roceedings % co''issioners.Before entering $+on the +erfor'ance of their

d$ties# the co''issioners shall tae and s$%scri%e an oath that the will faithf$ll

+erfor' their d$ties as co''issioners# which oath shall %e filed in co$rt with the other +roceedings in the case. E-idence 'a %e introd$ced % either +art %efore the

co''issioners who are a$thori>ed to ad'inister oaths on hearings %efore the'# and the

co''issioners shall# $nless the +arties consent to the contrar# after d$e notice to the +arties to attend# -iew and e"a'ine the +ro+ert so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated and its

s$rro$ndings# and 'a 'eas$re the sa'e# after which either +art 'a# % hi'self or

co$nsel# arg$e the case. ,he co''issioners shall assess the conse5$ential da'ages to the +ro+ert not taen and ded$ct fro' s$ch conse5$ential da'ages the conse5$ential

%enefits to %e deri-ed % the owner fro' the +$%lic $se or +$r+ose of the +ro+ert taen#

the o+eration of its franchise % the cor+oration or the carring on of the %$siness of the

cor+oration or +erson taing the +ro+ert. B$t in no case shall the conse5$ential %enefitsassessed e"ceed the conse5$ential da'ages assessed# or the owner %e de+ri-ed of the

act$al -al$e of his +ro+ert so taen.

SEC. . Re+ort % co''issioners and &$dg'ent there$+on.,he co$rt 'a order the

co''issioners to re+ort when an +artic$lar +ortion of the real estate shall ha-e %een +assed $+on % the'# and 'a render &$dg'ent $+on s$ch +artial re+ort# and direct the

co''issioners to +roceed with their wor as to s$%se5$ent +ortions of the +ro+ertso$ght to %e e"+ro+riated# and 'a fro' ti'e to ti'e so deal with s$ch +ro+ert. ,he

co''issioners shall 'ae a f$ll and acc$rate re+ort to the co$rt of all their +roceedings#

and s$ch +roceedings shall not %e effect$al $ntil the co$rt shall ha-e acce+ted their re+ortand rendered &$dg'ent in accordance with their reco''endations. E"ce+t as otherwise

e"+ressl ordered % the co$rt# s$ch re+ort shall %e filed within si"t (;4) das fro' the

date the co''issioners were notified of their a++oint'ent# which ti'e 'a %e e"tended

in the discretion of the co$rt. @+on the filing of s$ch re+ort# the cler of the co$rt shallser-e co+ies thereof on all interested +arties# with notice that the are allowed ten (24)

das within which to file o%&ections to the findings of the re+ort# if the so desire.

SEC. 3. Action $+on co''issionersJ re+ort.@+on the e"+iration of the +eriod of ten(24) das referred to in the +receding section# or e-en %efore the e"+iration of s$ch +eriod

%$t after all the interested +arties ha-e filed their o%&ections to the re+ort or their

state'ent of agree'ent therewith# the co$rt 'a# after hearing# acce+t the re+ort andrender &$dg'ent in accordance therewith or# for ca$se shown# it 'a reco''it the sa'e

to the co''issioners for f$rther re+ort of facts or it 'a set aside the re+ort and a++oint

new co''issioners or it 'a acce+t the re+ort in +art and re&ect it in +art and it 'a

'ae s$ch order or render s$ch &$dg'ent as shall sec$re to the +laintiff the +ro+ertessential to the e"ercise of his right of e"+ro+riation# and to the defendant &$st

co'+ensation for the +ro+ert so taen.

Based on these +ro-isions# it is clear that in addition to the oc$lar ins+ection +erfor'ed % the two (7) a++ointed co''issioners in this case# the are also re5$ired to cond$ct a

hearing or hearings to deter'ine &$st co'+ensation and to +ro-ide the +arties the

following: (2) notice of the said hearings and the o++ort$nit to attend the' (7) theo++ort$nit to introd$ce e-idence in their fa-or d$ring the said hearings and () the

o++ort$nit for the +arties to arg$e their res+ecti-e ca$ses d$ring the said hearings.

,he a++oint'ent of co''issioners to ascertain &$st co'+ensation for the +ro+ert so$ght

to %e taen is a 'andator re5$ire'ent in e"+ro+riation cases. In the instant e"+ro+riation



case# where the +rinci+al iss$e is the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation# a hearing %efore

the co''issioners is indis+ensa%le to allow the +arties to +resent e-idence on the iss$e of

&$st co'+ensation. 6hile it is tr$e that the findings of co''issioners 'a %e disregardedand the trial co$rt 'a s$%stit$te its own esti'ate of the -al$e# the latter 'a onl do so

for -alid reasons# that is# where the co''issioners ha-e a++lied illegal +rinci+les to the

e-idence s$%'itted to the'# where the ha-e disregarded a clear +re+onderance of e-idence# or where the a'o$nt allowed is either grossl inade5$ate or e"cessi-e. ,h$s#

trial with the aid of the co''issioners is a s$%stantial right that 'a not %e done awa

with ca+ricio$sl or for no reason at all.29In this case# the fact that no trial or hearing was cond$cted to afford the +arties the

o++ort$nit to +resent their own e-idence sho$ld ha-e i'+elled the trial co$rt to

disregard the co''issionersJ findings. ,he a%sence of s$ch trial or hearing constit$tes

re-ersi%le error on the +art of the trial co$rt %eca$se the +artiesJ (in +artic$lar# +etitionerJs) right to d$e +rocess was -iolated.

,he Co$rt of A++eals erred in r$ling that the +etitioner was not de+ri-ed of d$e +rocess

when it was a%le to file a 'otion for reconsideration

In r$ling that +etitioner was not de+ri-ed of d$e +rocess %eca$se it was a%le to file a!otion for Reconsideration# the CA had this to sa:

0etitionerP# f$rther# asserts that the a++ointed co''issioners failed to cond$ct a hearingto gi-e the +arties the o++ort$nit to +resent their res+ecti-e e-idence. According to

+etitionerP# the Co''issioners Val$ation Re+ort was s$%'itted on Octo%er 3# 2888 in

-iolation of the a++ellantJs right to d$e +rocess as it was de+ri-ed of the o++ort$nit to +resent e-idence on the deter'ination of the &$st co'+ensation.

6e are not +ers$aded.

,he filing % +etitionerP of a 'otion for reconsideration accorded it a'+le o++ort$nit to

dis+$te the findings of the co''issioners# so that +etitionerP was as f$ll heard as there'ight ha-e %een hearing act$all taen +lace. Denial of d$e +rocess cannot %e

s$ccessf$ll in-oed % a +art who has had the o++ort$nit to %e heard on his 'otion

for reconsideration. (Vda. De Ch$a -s. Co$rt of A++eals# 73 SCRA # 94).2;In this res+ect# we are constrained to disagree with the CA r$ling# and therefore# set it

aside.

6hile it is tr$e that there is &$ris+r$dence s$++orting the r$le that the filing of a !otionfor Reconsideration negates allegations of denial of d$e +rocess# it is e5$all tr$e that

there are -er s+ecific r$les for e"+ro+riation cases that re5$ire the strict o%ser-ance of

+roced$ral and s$%stanti-e d$e +rocess#2 %eca$se e"+ro+riation cases in-ol-e the

ad'ittedl +ainf$l de+ri-ation of +ri-ate +ro+ert for +$%lic +$r+oses and thedis%$rse'ent of +$%lic f$nds as &$st co'+ensation for the +ri-ate +ro+ert taen.

,herefore# it is ins$fficient to hold that a !otion for Reconsideration in an e"+ro+riation

case c$res the defect in d$e +rocess.As a corollar# the CAJs r$ling that denial of d$e +rocess cannot %e s$ccessf$ll in-oed

% a +art who has had the o++ort$nit to %e heard on his 'otion for reconsideration#

citing Vda. de Ch$a -. Co$rt of A++eals# is not a++lica%le to the instant case consideringthat the cited case in-ol-ed a lac of notice of the orders of the trial co$rt in granting

letters of ad'inistration. It was essentiall a +ri-ate dis+$te and therefore# no +$%lic

f$nds were in-ol-ed. It is distinct fro' this e"+ro+riation case where gra-e conse5$ences

attached to the orders of the trial co$rt when it deter'ined the &$st co'+ensation.









,he Co$rt taes this o++ort$nit to el$cidate the r$ling that the o++ort$nit to +resent

e-idence incidental to a !otion for Reconsideration will s$ffice if there was no chance to

do so d$ring the trial. 6e find s$ch sit$ation to %e the e"ce+tion and not the general r$le.,he o++ort$nit to +resent e-idence d$ring the trial re'ains a -ital re5$ire'ent in the

o%ser-ance of d$e +rocess. ,he trial is 'ateriall and s$%stantiall different fro' a

hearing on a !otion for Reconsideration. At the trial stage# the +art is $s$all allowedse-eral hearing dates de+ending on the n$'%er of witnesses who will %e +resented. At the

hearing of said 'otion# the trial co$rt 'a not %e 'ore acco''odating with the grant of

hearing dates e-en if the 'o-ant has 'an a-aila%le witnesses. Before the decision isrendered# a trial co$rt has an o+en 'ind on the 'erits of the +artiesJ +ositions. After the

decision has %een iss$ed# the trial co$rtJs -iew of these +ositions 'ight %e inclined to the

side of the winning +art and 'ight treat the !otion for Reconsideration and the

e-idence add$ced d$ring the hearing of said 'otion +erf$nctoril and in a ca-alier fashion. ,he incident 'ight not recei-e the e-al$ation and &$dg'ent of an i'+artial or

ne$tral &$dge. In s$'# the constit$tional g$arantee of d$e +rocess still re5$ires that a

+art sho$ld %e gi-en the f$llest and widest o++ort$nit to add$ce e-idence d$ring trial#

and the a-ail'ent of a 'otion for reconsideration will not satisf a +artJs right to +roced$ral d$e +rocess# $nless hisher ina%ilit to add$ce e-idence d$ring trial was d$e to

hisher own fa$lt or negligence.Second Iss$e: ,he legal %asis for the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation was ins$fficient

In this case# it is not dis+$ted that the co''issioners reco''ended that the &$st

co'+ensation %e +egged at 0h0 24#444.44 +er s5$are 'eter. ,he co''issioners arri-edat the fig$re in 5$estion after their oc$lar ins+ection of the +ro+ert# wherein the

considered the s$rro$nding str$ct$res# the +ro+ertJs location and# allegedl# the +rices of

the other# contig$o$s real +ro+erties in the area. F$rther'ore# %ased on the

co''issionersJ re+ort# the reco''ended &$st co'+ensation was deter'ined as of theti'e of the +re+aration of said re+ort on Octo%er 9# 2888.

In B.<. Berenotter G Co. -. Co$rt of A++eals# we held# th$s:

*$st co'+ensation is defined as the f$ll and fair e5$i-alent of the +ro+ert so$ght to %ee"+ro+riated. ,he 'eas$re is not the taerJs gain %$t the ownerJs loss. ,he co'+ensation#

to %e &$st# '$st %e fair not onl to the owner %$t also to the taer. E-en as $nder-al$ation

wo$ld de+ri-e the owner of his +ro+ert witho$t d$e +rocess# so too wo$ld itso-er-al$ation $nd$l fa-or hi' to the +re&$dice of the +$%lic.

,o deter'ine &$st co'+ensation# the trial co$rt sho$ld first ascertain the 'aret -al$e of

the +ro+ert# to which sho$ld %e added the conse5$ential da'ages after ded$cting

therefro' the conse5$ential %enefits which 'a arise fro' the e"+ro+riation. If theconse5$ential %enefits e"ceed the conse5$ential da'ages# these ite's sho$ld %e

disregarded altogether as the %asic -al$e of the +ro+ert sho$ld %e +aid in e-er case.

,he 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert is the +rice that 'a %e agreed $+on % +arties willing %$t not co'+elled to enter into the contract of sale. Not $nliel# a %$er des+erate to

ac5$ire a +iece of +ro+ert wo$ld agree to +a 'ore# and a seller in $rgent need of f$nds

wo$ld agree to acce+t less# than what it is act$all worth. " " "A'ong the factors to %e considered in arri-ing at the fair 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert are

the cost of ac5$isition# the c$rrent -al$e of lie +ro+erties# its act$al or +otential $ses# and

in the +artic$lar case of lands# their si>e# sha+e# location# and the ta" declarations thereon.

It is settled that &$st co'+ensation is to %e ascertained as of the ti'e of the taing# which



$s$all coincides with the co''ence'ent of the e"+ro+riation +roceedings. 6here the

instit$tion of the action +recedes entr into the +ro+ert# the &$st co'+ensation is to %e

ascertained as of the ti'e of the filing of the co'+laint.236e note that in this case# the filing of the co'+laint for e"+ro+riation +receded the

+etitionerJs entr into the +ro+ert.

,herefore# it is clear that in this case# the sole %asis for the deter'ination of &$stco'+ensation was the co''issionersJ oc$lar ins+ection of the +ro+erties in 5$estion# as

gleaned fro' the co''issionersJ Octo%er 9# 2888 re+ort. ,he trial co$rtJs reliance on the

said re+ort is a serio$s error considering that the reco''ended co'+ensation was highls+ec$lati-e and had no strong fact$al 'oorings. For one# the re+ort did not indicate the

fair 'aret -al$e of the lots occ$+ied % the Orchard =olf and Co$ntr Cl$%# =olden

Cit S$%di-ision# Arcontica S+orts Co'+le"# and other %$siness esta%lish'ents cited.

Also# the re+ort did not show how con-enience facilities# +$%lic trans+ortation# and theresidential and co''ercial >oning co$ld ha-e added -al$e to the lots %eing e"+ro+riated.

!oreo-er# the trial co$rt did not a'+l e"+lain the nat$re and a++lication of the highest

and %est $se 'ethod to deter'ine the &$st co'+ensation in e"+ro+riation cases. No

atte'+t was 'ade to &$stif the reco''ended &$st +rice in the s$%&ect re+ort thro$ghother s$fficient and relia%le 'eans s$ch as the holding of a trial or hearing at which the

+arties co$ld ha-e had ade5$ate o++ort$nit to add$ce their own e-idence# the testi'onof realtors in the area concerned# the fair 'aret -al$e and ta" declaration# act$al sales of

lots in the -icinit of the lot %eing e"+ro+riated on or a%o$t the date of the filing of the

co'+laint for e"+ro+riation# the +ertinent >onal -al$ation deri-ed fro' the B$rea$ of Internal Re-en$e# a'ong others.

!ore so# the co''issioners did not tae into acco$nt that the Asian financial crisis in the

second se'ester of 288 affected the fair 'aret -al$e of the s$%&ect lots. *$dicial notice

can %e taen of the fact that after the crisis hit the real estate 'aret# there was adownward trend in the +rices of real estate in the co$ntr.

F$rther'ore# the co''issionersJ re+ort itself is flawed considering that its reco''ended

&$st co'+ensation was +egged as of Octo%er 9# 2888# or the date when the said re+ort wasiss$ed# and not the &$st co'+ensation as of the date of the filing of the co'+laint for

e"+ro+riation# or as of No-e'%er 7# 2883. ,he +eriod %etween the ti'e of the filing of

the co'+laint (when &$st co'+ensation sho$ld ha-e %een deter'ined)# and the ti'e whenthe co''issionersJ re+ort reco''ending the &$st co'+ensation was iss$ed (or al'ost

one 2P ear after the filing of the co'+laint)# 'a ha-e distorted the correct a'o$nt of

&$st co'+ensation.

Clearl# the legal %asis for the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation in this case isins$fficient as earlier en$nciated. ,his %eing so# the trial co$rtJs r$ling in this res+ect

sho$ld %e set aside.

6<EREFORE# the +etition is =RAN,ED. ,he Dece'%er 73# 2888 and !arch 7# 7444Orders of the I'$s# Ca-ite R,C and the No-e'%er 23# 7447 Decision of the CA are

here% SE, ASIDE. ,his case is re'anded to the said trial co$rt for the +ro+er

deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation in confor'it with this Decision. No costs.SO ORDERED.





LECA REAL,H COR0ORA,ION# =.R. No. 299;49

0etitioner#-s.

RE0@BLIC OF ,<E 0<ILI00INES#

Re+resented % the De+art'entof 0$%lic 6ors and <ighwas#

Res+ondent.

" // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // "RE0@BLIC OF ,<E =.R. No. 2;428

0<ILI00INES#

Re+resented % the De+art'ent

of 0$%lic 6ors and <ighwas# 0etitioner#

/ -ers$s /

BAN OF ,<E 0<ILI00INE ISLANDS#

CI,HLAND INCOR0ORA,ED#LECA REAL,H COR0ORA,ION# and 0ro'$lgated:

LEELEN= REAL,H COR0ORA,ION#2Pﾧ

Res+ondents. Se+te'%er 7# 744;

" // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // //"

onal -al$ation is si'+l one of the indices of the fair 'aret -al$e of real estate.

B itself# howe-er# this inde" cannot %e the sole %asis of ?&$st co'+ensation in

e"+ro+riation cases. ,he standard is not the taerJs gain# %$t the ownerJs loss.

,he Case

Before the Co$rt are two consolidated 0etitions:7P ﾧ the first is a 0etition for

Re-iewPﾧ $nder R$le 19 filed % Leca Realt Cor+oration and the second# a s+ecial

ci-il action for certiorari1P ﾧ filed $nder R$le ;9 % the Re+$%lic of the 0hili++ines#

re+resented % the De+art'ent of 0$%lic 6ors and <ighwas (D06<) thro$gh the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/155605.htm#_ftn1










Office of the Solicitor =eneral (OS=).



Both 0etitions $rge this Co$rt to set aside the Decision dated Se+te'%er 79# 7447#

rendered % the Co$rt of A++eals (CA) in CA/=R CV No. ;42. 9P ﾧ ,he assailed

&$dg'ent affir'ed in toto the Decision dated !arch 4# 2883# iss$ed % the Regional

,rial Co$rt (R,C) of 0asig Cit# Branch 298# in SCA No. 24;.;Pﾧ ,he R,C a++ro-ed

the a'o$nt of co'+ensation as deter'ined % the co''issioners in their Re+ort dated

*an$ar 3# 2883. ,his co'+ensation was for the s$%&ect +ro+erties e"+ro+riated in

connection with the constr$ction of the EDSA/Shaw Bo$le-ard

(!andal$ong Cit) flo-er.

,he Facts

,he facts are narrated % the CA as follows:

?On 23 !arch 288;# the Re+$%lic of the 0hili++ines# re+resented % the

De+art'ent of 0$%lic 6ors and <ighwas (D06<)# filed a co'+laint for e'inentdo'ain for the taing of so'e +ortions of the +ro+erties of Leca Realt Cor+. (Leca)#

Leeleng Realt Inc. (Leeleng)# !etro+olitan Ban and ,r$st Co. (!etro%an)# Ban of

the 0hili++ine Islands (B0I)# and Citland Inc. (Citland). ,he said +ro+erties wo$ld %eaffected % the constr$ction of the EDSA/Shaw Bo$le-ard O-er+ass 0ro&ect in Shaw

Bo$le-ard

# !andal$ong Cit# a +$%lic +$r+ose to %e $ndertaen % theD06<.

?,he co'+laint was filed with the Regional ,rial Co$rt of 0asig

Cit and was raffled to Branch 298 of the said co$rt.

?Attached to the co'+laint is# a'ong other things# Resol$tion No.

81/2 of the Cit A++raisal Co''ittee of !andal$ong# which was created

to a++raise the +ro+erties that wo$ld %e affected % the constr$ction of the +ro&ect in 5$estion. In the said resol$tion# the Cit A++raisal Co''ittee

fi"ed the fair 'aret -al$es of defendantsJ +ro+erties# as follows:

2. All lots sit$ated along Shaw Bo$le-ard fro' Edsa going

westward towards !anila $+ to Sa'at Street# that Cit# at

,<IR,H FIVE ,<O@SAND 0ESOS (09#444) +er s5$are'eter.P







7. All lots sit$ated along Shaw Bo$le-ard fro' Edsa going

eastward towards 0asig $+ to San !ig$el A-en$e# 0asig#!etro !anila at FOR,H FIVE ,<O@SAND 0ESOS

(019#444) +er s5$are 'eter.P

?,he +ro+ert of defendant/a++ellant Leca is a++ro"i'atel

78.44 'eters fro' the intersection of Shaw Bo$le-ard and EDSA while

that of " " " Leeleng has an a++ro"i'ate distance of 21; 'eters fro' theintersection of EDSA/Shaw Bo$le-ard.

?,he +ro+ert of !etro%an is a++ro"i'atel 744 'eters fro'

EDSA and located %eside Shangri/La 0la>a# within Ortigas Center whilethat of B0I is a++ro"i'atel 7 'eters fro' EDSA and so$theast of

Shangri/La 0la>a# within Ortigas Center.

?,he +ro+ert of Citland# Inc. is one lot awa fro' EDSA 0la>a<otel# Shangri/La 0la>a and waling distance to S! De+art'ent Store#

within Ortigas Center.

?On Octo%er # 288# the co$rt a 5$o a++ointed three () co'+etent

and disinterested +ersons na'el# Att. Ben&a'in C. Angeles# !r. *oselitoE. =$nio and !r. !elchor Sa-illo as co''issioners to ascertain and

re+ort the &$st co'+ensation of the +ro+erties so$ght to %e taen.

?On *an$ar 8# 2883# the co''issioners s$%'itted their re+ortdated *an$ar 3# 2883# and reco''ended the fair 'aret -al$e of the

s$%&ect +ro+erties as follows:

2. 0ro+erties of Leca Realt Cor+oration and Leeleng

Realt Inc.: 094#444 +er s5.'.

7. !etro+olitian Ban and ,r$st Co.# Ban of the0hili++ine Islands: 0279#444 +er s5.'.

. Citland# Inc.: 02#944 +er s5.'. +l$s 24M corner

infl$ence# for a total of 02#944 +er s5.'. (sic)J

?In arri-ing at the said Re+ort# the Co''issioners too into

consideration the following factors: +ro+ert location# identification#P

neigh%orhood data# co''$nit facilities and $tilities# highest and %est $se#-al$ation and reasona%le indication of land -al$es within the -icinit.

?On !arch 4# 2883# the co$rt rendered the decision where% theCo''issionersJ Re+ort was ado+ted.Pﾧ





R$ling of the CA

,he CA affir'ed the lower co$rtJs &$dg'ent for the following reasons. First# the

R,CJs a++oint'ent of the co''issioners was fair and i'+artial. Second# the fair 'aret

-al$es of the affected +ro+erties were $nani'o$sl arri-ed at % the a++ointed

co''issioners after a thoro$gh and o%&ecti-e in-estigation and analsis of the +ro+erties#

with d$e consideration of the -ario$s factors affecting those -al$es: location# e"isting

facilities# desira%ilit# neigh%orhood# and si>e.3Pﾧ

,he a++ellate co$rt liewise de%$ned the contention of the Re+$%lic of the

0hili++ines that the co''issioners had erred in fi"ing the fair 'aret -al$es of the

+ro+erties# %eca$se the a++raisals e"ceeded the >onal -al$es deter'ined in De+art'ent of

Finance Order No. 2/8;. ,he CA held that the >onal -al$ation was 'ade for ta"ation

+$r+oses onl and was not necessaril reflecti-e of the act$al 'aret -al$es of the

+ro+erties in the area.8Pﾧ

<ence# these 0etitions.24Pﾧ









,he Iss$es

,he following iss$es were s$%'itted to this Co$rt for resol$tion:

2. ?Is the Re+$%lic %o$nd and +$t in esto++el % the gross

negligence'istae of its agentfor'er co$nselQ Is the Co$rt of

A++ealsJ Decision of Se+te'%er 79# 7447 in accord with law and &$ris+r$dence22Pﾧ

7. ?6hether the Co$rt of A++eals inc$rred an error of law in affir'ing

the a'o$nt fi"ed % the trial co$rt %ased on the re+ort of the %oardof co''issioners of 094#444 +er s5$are 'eter as &$st

co'+ensation for the taing of +etitioner LecaJsP 2#72 s5$are

'eter +ro+ert at Shaw Bo$le-ard# !andal$ong Cit# whilead&$dging other +arties whose lands were also e"+ro+riated in the

sa'e -icinit to +a'ent of 0279#444.44 +er s5$are 'eter for

!etro%an and B0I# and 02#944.44 +er s5$are 'eter for CitLand# Inc. orP 'ore than do$%le the -al$e fi"ed for +etitioner

LecaJsP land.27Pﾧ

,he Co$rtJs R$ling

,he 0etition in =R 299;49 is 'eritorio$s# while that in =R 2;428 is not.







First Iss$e:

Esto++el % the =o-ern'ent

Before this Co$rt is the iss$e of whether 0etitioner Re+$%lic is esto++ed % its

agentJs fail$re to file an a++eal of the CA Decision.

Clearl# the 5$estioned Decision was recei-ed % the Re+$%lic thro$gh the OS=

on Octo%er # 7447. Accordingl# the go-ern'entJs lawers had fifteen (29) das or $ntil

Octo%er 77# 7447# to file a 'otion for reconsideration with the CA and# in case this

'otion was denied# another fifteen (29) das fro' the notice of the denial to file a

+etition for re-iew $nder R$le 19. B$t it was onl on Octo%er 74# 744# 'ore than one

ear later# that the Re+$%lic filed the +resent 0etition for Certiorari. 0res$'a%l# it

resorted to the s+ecial ci-il action %eca$se of its fail$re to file an a++eal within the 29/da

regle'entar +eriod.

,i'e and ti'e again# this Co$rt has e'+hasi>ed that a s+ecial ci-il action for

certiorari $nder R$le ;9 lies onl when ?there is no a++ealP nor an +lain# s+eed and

ade5$ate re'ed in the ordinar co$rse of law.2Pﾧ ,hat action is not a s$%stit$te for a

lost a++eal in general# it is not allowed when a +art to a case fails to a++eal a &$dg'ent

to the +ro+er for$'.21Pﾧ








In this case# there was no reason wh the Re+$%lic co$ld not ha-e 'o-ed to

reconsider the assailed CA Decision or a++ealed it within the regle'entar +eriod. ,hese

+roced$ral de-ices (reconsideration and a++eal) were not onl a-aila%le the wo$ld ha-e

also constit$ted +lain# s+eed and ade5$ate re'edies for 5$estioning the alleged errors in

the CA Decision.

Besides# it is a horn%oo doctrine that 'ere errors of &$dg'ent cannot %e the

+ro+er s$%&ect of a s+ecial ci-il action for certiorari.29Pﾧ International E"change Ban -.

Co$rt of A++eals2;Pﾧ stressed this r$le as follows:

?" " " 6here the iss$e or 5$estion in-ol-ed affects the wisdo' or

legal so$ndness of the decision T not the &$risdiction of the co$rt to render

said decision T the sa'e is %eond the +ro-ince of a s+ecial ci-il action for certiorari.Erroneo$s findings and concl$sions do not render the a++ellate

co$rt -$lnera%le to the correcti-e writ of certiorari# for where the co$rt has &$risdiction o-er the case# e-en if its findings are not correct# the wo$ld#

at the 'ost# constit$te errors of law and not a%$se of discretion correcti%le % certiorari.2Pﾧ (E'+hasis s$++lied)

F$rther'ore# +etitions $nder R$le ;9 '$st %e filed within ;4 das. In the +resent

case# the 0etition was filed after o-er a ear.

Faced with the ine-ita%le %ric wall# the Re+$%lic thro$gh the OS= in-oes the

+rinci+le that a lawerJs gross negligence will not %ind the client.23Pﾧ ,he Re+$%lic











i'+$tes the fail$re to file a ti'el a++eal to one of its lawers# Solicitor !a$ro Elin>ano#

who allegedl too no action after recei-ing the ad-erse Decision of the Co$rt of

A++eals.28Pﾧ In s$++ort of its clai'# the OS= cites this Co$rtJs +rono$nce'ents that a

lawerJs +roced$ral %l$nder constit$tes an e"ce+tion to the r$le that clients are %o$nd %

the 'istaes of their co$nsel. <ence# it i'+lores this Co$rt to gi-e d$e co$rse to the

0etition to +re-ent a 'iscarriage of &$stice.

6e are not con-inced.

First# the ti'e/honored r$le that the go-ern'ent cannot %e esto++ed % the

'istaes or errors of its agent is not witho$t e"ce+tions. In Re+$%lic of the 0hili++ines -.

= <oldings#74Pﾧ this Co$rt held th$s:

?6hile the Re+$%lic or the go-ern'ent is $s$all not esto++ed %

the 'istae or error on the +art of its officials or agents# the Re+$%liccannot now tae ref$ge in the r$le as it does not afford a %lanet or a%sol$te

i''$nit. O$r +rono$nce'ent in Re+$%lic -. Co$rt of A++eals is

instr$cti-e: the Solicitor/=eneral 'a not %e e"c$sed fro' its shortco'ings % in-oing the doctrine as if it were so'e 'agic incantation that co$ld

%enignl# if ar%itraril# condone and erase its errors.

,he r$le on non/esto++el of the go-ern'ent is not designed to +er+etrate an

in&$stice. In general# the r$les on a++eal are created and enforced to ens$re the orderl

ad'inistration of &$stice. ,he &$dicial 'achiner wo$ld r$n agro$nd if late +etitions# lie

the +resent one# are allowed on the fli's e"c$se that the attending lawer was grossl

lacing in -igilance.








Besides# to co$ntenance the Re+$%licJs +lea for li%eralit wo$ld 'ean a

ree"a'ination of iss$es that ha-e long %een settled# at least fro' the +oints of -iew of the

other res+ondents that did not a++eal the CA Decision T B0I# Citland and Leeleng. As

far as the are concerned# the a++ellate co$rtJs &$dg'ent dated Se+te'%er 79# 7447#

alread attained finalit on Octo%er 7# 7447.72Pﾧ Accordingl# the entr of &$dg'ent

was ordered % the CA in its Resol$tion dated *$l 79# 744.77Pﾧ

Second# as Res+ondent B0I o%ser-ed in its !e'orand$'# nowhere in the

+leadings of the OS= in the lower co$rts did the na'e of Solicitor !a$ro Elin>ano

a++ear. ,he Re+$%licJs Brief %efore the Co$rt of A++eals was signed % Assistant

Solicitor =eneral 0io C. =$errero and Associate Solicitor Roland C. Villal$>.7P ﾧ

Neither was e-idence add$ced to show the +artici+ation in the case of Solicitor Elin>ano#

+artic$larl as the attending co$nsel of the Re+$%lic.

,hird# we are hard/+ressed in a++reciating the so/called ?gra-e in&$stice against

the go-ern'ent. In a letter dated!a 74# 2883# Secretar =regorio R. Vigilar of the

D06< instr$cted the OS= ?to file the necessar +leading in co$rt to either withdraw or

dro+ the a++eal on the Decision +ro'$lgated on !arch 4# 2883 % the R,C# National

Ca+ital *$dicial Region# 0asig Cit# Branch 298.71Pﾧ

,he re5$est was +redicated on the concl$sion that the ?co'+ensation costs as

reco''ended % the co''issioners and fi"ed % the co$rt in the a%o-e/'entioned

Decision are reasona%le and acce+ta%le and that the ?'o-e will hasten the legal

+rocess# there% shorten the ti'e of the +roceedings and sto+ the r$nning of interest in











the a'o$nt0;#714#444.44 +er ann$'.79Pﾧ ,he sa'e re5$est was reiterated in a second

letter dated A$g$st 23# 2883# stating that ?the 'aret -al$es reco''ended % the

co''issioners are fPair and reflecti-e -al$es +re-ailing in the area.7;Pﾧ







,he D06< is the 'ain go-ern'ent agenc tased to i'+le'ent the e"+ro+riation

and s$%se5$ent constr$ction of the EDSA/Shaw Bo$le-ard O-er+ass +ro&ect. ,h$s# its

&$dg'ent on this 'atter is i'+ossi%le to ignore 5$ite the contrar# it sho$ld %e accorded

significant weight.

In the light of the circ$'stances# it is indeed +la$si%le // as Res+ondent B0I

s$%'its // that Solicitor Elin>ano# or whoe-er was the go-ern'entJs handling lawer#

+$r+osel e"ercised his discretion not to a++eal the assailed CA Decision. It was

altogether +ossi%le that the OS= ado+ted the +osition of the D06< that the -al$ation of

the e"+ro+riated +ro+erties# as deter'ined % the R,C# was correct and &$stified.

Lastl# we note that the OS= sees to e"c$se its fail$re to file a ti'el a++eal in

order to a-ert the alleged i'+ro-ident release of +$%lic f$nds and conse5$ent $n&$st

enrich'ent of the concerned +ro+ert owners.7Pﾧ Lest it %e con-enientl forgotten# the

res+onsi%ilit of +re-enting the i'+ro-ident release of +$%lic f$nds falls $+on the OS= as

co$nsel of the go-ern'ent.73Pﾧ ,he Co$rtJs d$t in this case is 'erel to deter'ine if

the Decision of the lower co$rts in fi"ing &$st co'+ensation is in accord with the facts

and the law.

Second Iss$e:Deter'ination of *$st Co'+ensation







,he 'ore critical iss$e is the deter'ination of the a'o$nt of &$st co'+ensation

for the e"+ro+riated +ro+ert of Leca in =R 299;49. ,he Re+$%lic a-ers that the -al$es

arri-ed at in the Co''issionersJ Re+ort were not s$++orted % s$fficient e-idence.

!oreo-er# the were allegedl %ased on news+a+er listings of ad-ertise'ents#78P ﾧ

which the co''issioners dee'ed to %e reasona%le indices of the fair 'aret -al$e.

F$rther# 'ere offers of sale // not cons$''ated transactions // were these listed ite's#

sa-e for one#4Pﾧ as follows:

?2. On Fe%r$ar 27# 288# a +ro+ert with an area of 2#;44 s5$are 'eter# 'ore or

less# located along !eralco A-en$e

# within Ortigas Center# 0asig Cit# !etro+olitan !anila wasoffered for sale thro$gh the !anila B$lletin at an asing +rice of 0723#444

+er s5$are 'eter.

?7. On Fe%r$ar 27# 288# a +ro+ert with an area of 7#429 s5$are

'eter 'ore or less# located along Dona *$lia Vargas A-en$e# within

Ortigas Center# 0asig Cit# !etro+olitan !anila# was offered for sale

thro$gh the !anila B$lletin at an asing +rice of 04#444 +er s5$are'eter.

?. On Fe%r$ar 71# 288# a co''ercial lot ha-ing an area of 7#444 s5$are 'eter 'ore or less# located along!eralco A-en$e

# within Ortigas Center# 0asig Cit# !etro+olitan !anila# was

offered for sale thro$gh the !anila B$lletin at an asing +rice of 0744#444 +er s5$are 'eter.

?1. On *$l 74# 288# a +ro+ert ha-ing an area of 2#18 s5$are 'eter 'ore or

less# located along Dona *$lia Vargas A-en$e

# within Ortigas Center# 0asig Cit# !etro+olitan !anila# wasoffered for sale thro$gh the !anila B$lletin at an asing +rice of 774#444

+er s5$are 'eter.

,he Re-ised onal Val$es of Real 0ro+erties in the Cit of !andal$ong were








i'+le'ented on A+ril 78# 288;# % the De+art'ent of Finance $nder DO No. 2/8;. ,he

Re+$%lic f$rther arg$es that# according to this listing# +ro+erties classified as residential

condo'ini$'s in the -icinit of Shaw Bo$le-ard

had a >onal -al$e of 099#444 +er s5$are 'eter. On the other hand# those

+ro+erties classified as co''ercial condo'ini$'s had a >onal -al$e of0;4#444 +er

s5$are 'eter.

<ence# the fair 'aret -al$e of the s$%&ect +ro+erties of B0I and Citland sho$ld

not %e higher than 0;4#444 +er s5$are 'eter.2Pﾧ =i-en these +rescri%ed -al$es# the

Re+$%lic contends that the co'+ensation was rendered $nfair# $n&$st and $nconsciona%le

% the gross discre+ancies %etween the -al$es deter'ined for the +ro+erties of Leca and

Leeleng Realt and for those of B0I and Citland.7Pﾧ

Leca# on the other hand# alleges that the fair 'aret -al$e ascri%ed to its +ro+ert

was not s$fficient. S$++osedl# the Co$rt of A++eals did not gi-e d$e consideration to

the onal Val$e ,a%le of the B$rea$ of Internal Re-en$e. P ﾧ 6orse# the CA totall

ignored the Fair !aret Val$e A++raisal dated No-e'%er 24#









288# +re+ared % C$er-o A++raisers# Inc. ,his a++raisal# which was s$%'itted

in co'+liance with the directi-e of the co''issioners#1P ﾧ had +laced the -al$e of

LecaJs +ro+ert at 04#444 +er s5$are 'eter.

In e"+ro+riation +roceedings in general# the 'aret -al$e is the &$st co'+ensation

to which the owner of a conde'ned +ro+ert is entitled. !ore +recisel# 'aret -al$e is

?that s$' of 'one which a +erson desiro$s %$t not co'+elled to %$# and an owner

willing %$t not co'+elled to sell# wo$ld agree on as a +rice to %e gi-en and recei-ed

therefor.9Pﾧ

Re+$%lic -. Co$rt of A++eals;Pﾧ r$led in this wise:

?,he constit$tional li'itation of &$st co'+ensationJ is consideredto %e the s$' e5$i-alent of the 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert# %roadl

descri%ed to %e the +rice fi"ed % the seller in o+en 'aret in the $s$al and

ordinar co$rse of legal action and co'+etition or the fair -al$e of the +ro+ert as %etween one who recei-es# and one who desires to sell# it fi"edat the ti'e of the act$al taing % the go-ern'ent.Pﾧ

*$st co'+ensation# then# is the f$ll and fair e5$i-alent of a +ro+ert taen fro' its

owner % the e"+ro+riator. ,he 'eas$re is not the taerJs gain# %$t the ownerJs loss. Note

'$st %e taen that the word ?&$st is $sed to stress the 'eaning of the word

?co'+ensation# in order to con-e the idea that the e5$i-alent to %e rendered for the

+ro+ert to %e taen shall %e real# s$%stantial# f$ll and a'+le.3Pﾧ

Necessaril# &$st co'+ensation '$st not %e arri-ed at ar%itraril# %$t deter'ined

after an e-al$ation of different factors. In the +resent case# the Co''issionersJ Re+ort













'ade $se of the so/called 'aret/data a++roach in arri-ing at the -al$ation of the

+ro+erties. In this 'ethod# the -al$e of the land is %ased on sales and listings of

co'+ara%le +ro+ert registered within the -icinit.

As %oth the Re+$%lic and Leca correctl +ointed o$t# howe-er# the

Co''issionersJ Re+ort relied hea-il on news+a+er ad-ertise'ents of offers of sale of

+ro+erties in the -icinit.



Clearl# these offers were 'erel asing +rices. B their -er nat$re# the are

s$%&ect to negotiations in which a %$er 'a as for a lower +rice $nderstanda%l# it is

c$sto'ar for the owner to raise the +rice offer.

6ell/settled is the r$le that in e"+ro+riation +roceedings# the -al$e of a +ro+ert

'$st %e deter'ined either as of the date of the taing of the +ro+ert or the filing of the

co'+laint# whiche-er co'es first.8Pﾧ In this case# the Co'+laint was filed on !arch

23# 288;# and the trial co$rt iss$ed the 6rit of 0ossession on *$ne 28# 288. 14Pﾧ ,he

offers cited in the Co''issionersJ Re+ort# tho$gh# were 'ade %etween !a 288; to

Fe%r$ar 288# a +eriod after the filing of the Co'+laint on !arch 23# 288;. ,h$s# there

is no e-idence on record of the fair 'aret -al$e of the +ro+ert as of !arch 288;.

!oreo-er# the offers for sale were good for +ro+erties inside the Ortigas Center.

12P ﾧ ,h$s# those offers cannot %e $sed as %ases for the -al$es of +ro+erties along

EDSA# where the +ro+ert of 0etitioner Leca is sit$ated. In fact# no listing or e-idence of

concl$ded sales was s$%'itted for +ro+erties in areas o$tside the Ortigas Center. 6hile it

is tr$e that ad&oining +ro+erties 'a %e -al$ed differentl# co'+etent e-idence still has to

%e +resented to esta%lish the differences in 'aret -al$es.

,he Re+$%lic is incorrect# howe-er# in alleging that the -al$es were e"or%itant#

'erel %eca$se the e"ceeded the 'a"i'$' >onal -al$e of real +ro+erties in the sa'e

location where the s$%&ect +ro+erties were located. ,he >onal -al$e 'a %e one# %$t not

necessaril the sole# inde" of the -al$e of a realt.17Pﾧ National 0ower Cor+oration -.











!an$%a Agro/Ind$strial held th$s:

?" " " !aret -al$eP is not li'ited to the assessed -al$e of the +ro+ert or to the sched$le of 'aret -al$es deter'ined % the +ro-incial

or cit a++raisal co''ittee. <owe-er# these -al$es 'a ser-e as factors to %e considered in the &$dicial -al$ation of the +ro+ert.1Pﾧ

,he a%o-e r$ling finds s$++ort in E0A -. D$la11Pﾧ in this wise:

?Vario$s factors can co'e into +la in the -al$ation of s+ecific

+ro+erties singled o$t for e"+ro+riation. ,he -al$es gi-en % +ro-incial

assessors are $s$all $nifor' for -er wide areas co-ering se-eral %arriosor e-en an entire town with the e"ce+tion of the +o%lacion. Indi-id$al

differences are ne-er taen into acco$nt. ,he -al$e of land is %ased on

s$ch generalities as its +ossi%le c$lti-ation for rice# corn# cocon$ts or other

cro+s. Ver often land descri%ed as cogonalJ has %een c$lti-ated for generations. B$ildings are descri%ed in ter's of onl two or three classes

of %$ilding 'aterials and esti'ates of areas are 'ore often inacc$rate thancorrect. ,a" -al$es can ser-e as g$ides %$t cannot %e a%sol$te s$%stit$tes

for &$st co'+ensation.19Pﾧ (E'+hasis s$++lied)

As +ointed o$t earlier# no other e-idence was +resented to s$++ort the -al$es

deter'ined as &$st co'+ensation for LecaJs +ro+ert. ,he onl ite's s$%'itted to the

trial co$rt were the Co''issionerJs Re+ort and a location 'a+# which were e-identl

ins$fficient.1;Pﾧ

In National 0ower Cor+oration -. !an$%a Agro/Ind$strial De-elo+'ent

Cor+oration#1Pﾧ the reco''ended +rice of the cit assessor was re&ected % this Co$rt.

,he o+inions of the %ans and the realtors# as reflected in the co'+$tation of the 'aret

-al$e of the +ro+ert and in the Co''issionersJ Re+ort# were not s$%stantiated % an













doc$'entar e-idence.

!oreo-er# Land Ban of the 0hili++ines -. 6coco r$led as follows:

?" " ". 6hile 'aret -al$e 'a %e one of the %ases of deter'ining

&$st co'+ensation# the sa'e cannot %e ar%itraril arri-ed at witho$t

considering the factors to %e a++reciated in arri-ing at the fair 'aret-al$e of the +ro+erte.g.# the cost of ac5$isition# the c$rrent -al$e of lie

+ro+erties# its si>e# sha+e# location# as well as the ta" declarations thereon.

Since these factors were not considered# a re'and of the case for

deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation is necessar. " " ".13Pﾧ

It '$st %e noted# tho$gh# that the interest of 0etitioner Leca is distinct and

se+arate fro' and will in no wa affect the settled rights and interests of the other +arties

that did not a++eal the &$dg'ent of the trial co$rt. As to Citland Inc.# Ban of the

0hili++ine Islands# and Leeleng Realt Inc.# the Decision %elow has long %eco'e final

and e"ec$tor.

6<EREFORE# the 0etition of the Re+$%lic in =R No. 2;428 is DIS!ISSED#

while that of Leca Realt Cor+oration is RE!ANDED to the trial co$rt for the +ro+er

deter'ination of the a'o$nt of &$st co'+ensation. ,o forestall an f$rther dela in the

resol$tion of this case# the trial co$rt is here% ordered to fi" the ?&$st co'+ensation for

LecaJs +ro+ert within si" 'onths fro' its recei+t of this Decision and afterwards to

re+ort to the Co$rt its co'+liance. Insofar as it affects the +ro+ert of Leca Realt

Cor+oration# the assailed Decision of the Co$rt of A++eals in CA =R CV No. ;42 is





SE, ASIDE. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

=.R. No. 2142;4 *an$ar 2# 7441LAND BAN OF ,<E 0<ILI00INES# +etitioner#

-s.

FELICIANO F. 6HCOCO# res+ondent.

" / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / "=.R. No. 21; *an$ar 2# 7441

FELICIANO F. 6HCOCO# +etitioner#

-s.,<E <ONORABLE RODRI=O S. CAS0ILLO# 0airing *$dge of the Regional ,rial

Co$rt# ,hird *$dicial Region# Branch 7# Ca%anat$an Cit and the De+art'ent of

Agrarian Refor'# res+ondents.D E C I S I O N

HNARES/SAN,IA=O# *.:

Before the Co$rt are consolidated +etitions# the first seeing the re-iew of the Fe%r$ar 8#

2888 Decision2 and the Se+te'%er 77# 2888 Resol$tion7 of the Co$rt of A++eals in CA/=.R. No. S0 No. 882# which 'odified the Decision of Regional ,rial Co$rt of

Ca%anat$an Cit# Branch 7# acting as a S+ecial Agrarian Co$rt in Agrarian Case No. 82

(AF) and the second for 'anda'$s to co'+el the said trial co$rt to iss$e a writ of

e"ec$tion and to direct *$dge Rodrigo S. Cas+illo to inhi%it hi'self fro' Agrarian Case No. 82 (AF).

,he $ndis+$ted antecedents show that Feliciano F. 6coco is the registered owner of a81.2;84 hectare $nirrigated and $ntenanted rice land# co-ered % ,ransfer Certificate of

,itle No. N,/74;177 and sit$ated in the Sitios of A%lang# Sag$ingan and 0ina'$nghilan#

Barrio of San *$an# Lica%# N$e-a Eci&a.1In line with the Co'+rehensi-e Agrarian Refor' 0rogra' (CAR0) of the go-ern'ent#

6coco -ol$ntaril offered to sell the land to the De+art'ent of Agrarian Refor' (DAR)

for 021.8 'illion.9 In No-e'%er 2882# after the DARJs e-al$ation of the a++lication and

the deter'ination of the &$st co'+ensation % the Land Ban of the 0hili++ines (LB0)# anotice of intention to ac5$ire 31.9;84 hectares of the +ro+ert for 02#17#;;.1;; was

sent to 6coco. ,he a'o$nt offered was later raised to 07#981#419.8 and# $+on re-iew#was 'odified to 07#734#298.37. ,he area which the DAR offered to ac5$ire e"cl$dedidle lands# ri-er and road located therein. 6coco re&ected the offer# +ro'+ting the DAR

to indorse the case to the De+art'ent of Agrarian Refor' Ad&$dication Board (DARAB)

for the +$r+ose of fi"ing the &$st co'+ensation in a s$''ar ad'inistrati-e +roceeding.3,he case was doceted as DARAB VOS Case No. 77 NE 8. ,hereafter# the DARAB

re5$ested LB0 to o+en a tr$st acco$nt in the na'e of 6coco and de+osited the

co'+ensation offered % DAR.8 In the 'eanti'e# the +ro+ert was distri%$ted to far'er/



%eneficiaries.

On !arch 78# 288# DARAB re5$ired the +arties to s$%'it their res+ecti-e 'e'oranda

or +osition +a+ers in s$++ort of their clai'.24 6coco# howe-er# decided to forego withthe filing of the re5$ired +leadings# and instead filed on A+ril 2# 288# the instant case

for deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation with the Regional ,rial Co$rt of Ca%anat$an Cit#

Branch 7# doceted as Agrarian Case No. 82 (AF).22 I'+leaded as +art/defendantstherein were DAR and LB0.

On A+ril 4# 288# 6coco filed a 'anifestation in VOS Case No. 77 NE 8# infor'ing

the DARAB of the +endenc of Agrarian Case No. 82 (AF) with the Ca%anat$an co$rt#acting as a s+ecial agrarian co$rt.27 On !arch 8# 2881# the DARAB iss$ed an order

dis'issing the case to gi-e wa to the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation % the

Ca%anat$an co$rt. 0ertinent +ortion thereof states:

Ad'ittedl# this For$' is -ested with the &$risdiction to cond$ct ad'inistrati-e +roceeding to deter'ine co'+ensation. <Powe-er# a thoro$gh +er$sal of +etitionerJs

co'+laint showed that he did not onl raise the iss$e of -al$ation %$t s$ch other 'atters

which are %eond the co'+etence of the Board. Besides# the +etitioner has the o+tion to

a-ail the ad'inistrati-e re'edies or %ring the 'atter on &$st co'+ensation to the S+ecialAgrarian Co$rt for final deter'ination.

6<EREFORE# +re'ises considered# this case is here% dis'issed.SO ORDERED.2

!eanwhile# DAR and LB0 filed their res+ecti-e answers %efore the s+ecial agrarian co$rt

in Agrarian Case No. 82 (AF)# contending that the -al$ation of 6cocoJs +ro+ert was inaccordance with law and that the latter failed to e"ha$st ad'inistrati-e re'edies % not

+artici+ating in the s$''ar ad'inistrati-e +roceedings %efore the DARAB which has

+ri'ar &$risdiction o-er deter'ination of land -al$ation.21

After cond$cting a +re/trial on Octo%er # 2881# the trial co$rt iss$ed a +re/trial order asfollows:

,he +arties 'anifested that there is no +ossi%ilit of a'ica%le settle'ent# neither are the

willing to ad'it or sti+$late on facts# e"ce+t those contained in the +leadings.,he onl iss$e left is for the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation or correct -al$ation of

the land owned % the +laintiff s$%&ect of this case.

,he +arties then +raed to ter'inate the +re/trial conference.AS 0RAHED FOR# the +re/trial conference is considered ter'inated# and instead of trial#

the +arties are allowed to s$%'it their res+ecti-e 'e'oranda.

6<EREFORE# the +arties are gi-en twent (74) das fro' toda within which to file

their si'$ltaneo$s 'e'oranda# and another ten (24) das fro' recei+t thereof to file their Re+lRe&oinder# if an# and thereafter# this case shall %e dee'ed s$%'itted for decision.

SO ORDERED.29

,he e-idence +resented % 6coco in s$++ort of his clai' were the following: (2),ransfer Certificate of ,itle No. N,/74;177 (7) Notice of Land Val$ation dated *$ne 23#

2887 and () letter dated *$l 24# 2887 re&ecting the co$nter/offer of LB0 and DAR.2;

On the other hand# DAR and LB0 +resented the Land Val$ation 6orsheets.2On No-e'%er 21# 2889# the trial co$rt rendered a decision in fa-or of 6coco. It r$led

that there is no need to +resent e-idence in s$++ort of the land -al$ation inas'$ch as it is

of +$%lic nowledge that the +re-ailing 'aret -al$e of agric$lt$ral lands sold in Lica%#

N$e-a Eci&a is fro' 029#444.44 to 294#444.44 +er hectare. ,he co$rt th$s too &$dicial



notice thereof and fi"ed the co'+ensation for the entire 81.2;84 hectare land at

0217#944.44 +er hectare or a total of 02#173#437.44. It also awarded 6coco act$al

da'ages for $nreali>ed +rofits +l$s legal interest. ,he dis+ositi-e +ortion thereof states:6<EREFORE# +re'ises considered# &$dg'ent is here% rendered:

2. Ordering the defendants to +a the a'o$nt of 02#128#437.44 to +laintiff as &$st

co'+ensation for the +ro+ert ac5$ired7. Ordering the defendants to +a +laintiff the a'o$nt of 078#;;#79.44 re+resenting the

$nreali>ed +rofits fro' the ti'e of ac5$isition of the s$%&ect +ro+ert and the s$' of

03#19#724.44 for e-er calendar ear# $ntil the a'o$nt of co'+ensation is f$ll +aidincl$ding legal interest which had accr$ed thereon.


SO ORDERED.23

,he DAR and the LB0 filed se+arate +etitions %efore the Co$rt of A++eals. ,he +etition %ro$ght % DAR on &$risdictional and +roced$ral iss$es# doceted as CA/=.R. No. S0

No. 871# was dis'issed on !a 78# 288.28,he dis'issal %eca'e final and e"ec$tor

on *$ne 7;# 288.74 ,his +ro'+ted 6coco to file a +etition for 'anda'$s %efore this

Co$rt# doceted as =.R. No. 21;# +raing that the decision of the Regional ,rial Co$rtof Ca%anat$an Cit# Branch 7# in Agrarian Case No. 82 (AF) %e e"ec$ted# and that *$dge

Rodrigo S. Cas+illo# the now +residing *$dge of said co$rt# %e co'+elled to inhi%ithi'self fro' hearing the case.

,he +etition %ro$ght % LB0 on %oth s$%stanti-e and +roced$ral gro$nds# doceted as

CA/=.R. No. S0 No. 882# was liewise dis'issed % the Co$rt of A++eals on Fe%r$ar8# 2888.72 On Se+te'%er 77# 2888# howe-er# the Co$rt of A++eals 'odified its decision

% ded$cting fro' the co'+ensation d$e 6coco the a'o$nt corres+onding to the

.;7 hectare +ortion of the 81.2;84 hectare land which was fo$nd to ha-e %een

+re-io$sl sold % 6coco to the Re+$%lic# th$s T 6<EREFORE# and confor'a%l with the a%o-e# O$r decision of Fe%r$ar 8# 2888 is

here% !ODIFIED in the sense that the -al$e corres+onding to the aforesaid .;7

hectares and all the awards a++ertaining thereto in the decision a 5$o are orderedded$cted fro' the totalit of the awards granted to the +ri-ate res+ondent. In all other

res+ects# the decision so$ght to %e reconsidered is here% RE/AFFIR!ED and

REI,ERA,ED.SO ORDERED.77

In its +etition# LB0 contended that the Co$rt of A++eals erred in r$ling:

I

,<A, ,<E ,RIAL CO@R, AC,IN= AS A S0ECIAL A=RARIAN CO@R, !AHASS@!E *@RISDIC,ION OVER A=RARIAN CASE NO. 82 (AF) AND RENDER

*@D=!EN, ,<EREON 6I,<O@, AN INI,IAL AD!INIS,RA,IVE

DE,ER!INA,ION OF *@S, CO!0ENSA,ION BH ,<E DARAB 0@RS@AN, ,OSEC,ION 2; OF RA ;;9# OVER ,<E ,I!ELH OB*EC,ION OF ,<E 0E,I,IONER#

AND IN VIOLA,ION OF ,<E R@LE ON E<A@S,ION OF AD!INIS,RA,IVE

RE!EDIES AND ON FOR@! S<O00IN=II

,<A, ,<E *@S, CO!0ENSA,ION DE,ER!INED BH ,<E ,RIAL CO@R, 6AS

S@00OR,ED BH S@BS,AN,IAL EVIDENCE# 6<EN I, 6AS BASED ONLH ON

*@DICIAL NO,ICE OF ,<E 0REVAILIN= !ARE, VAL@E OF LAND BASED ON



,<E ALLE=ED 0RICE OF ,RANSFER OF ,EN@RAL RI=<,S# ,AEN 6I,<O@,

NO,ICE AND <EARIN= IN VIOLA,ION OF R@LE 278 OF ,<E R@LES OF

CO@R,III

,<A, ,<E ,RIAL CO@R, CAN REK@IRE ,<E 0E,I,IONER ,O CO!0ENSA,E

,<E 0OR,IONS OF RES0ONDEN,JS 0RO0ER,H 6<IC< 6ERE NO, DECLAREDBH ,<E DAR FOR ACK@ISI,ION# NOR S@I,ABLE FOR A=RIC@L,@RE NOR

CA0ABLE OF DIS,RIB@,ION ,O FAR!ER BENEFICIARIES @NDER ,<E CAR0

IV,<A, ,<E ,RIAL CO@R, CAN A6ARD AS 0AR, OF *@S, CO!0ENSA,ION

LE=AL IN,ERES, ON ,<E 0RINCI0AL AND ALLE=ED @NREALIED 0ROFI,S

OF 078#;;#79.44 FRO! ,<E ,I!E OF ACK@ISI,ION OF ,<E S@B*EC,

0RO0ER,H AND 03#19#724.44 FOR EVERH CALENDAR HEAR ,<EREAF,ER#CONSIDERIN= ,<A, ,<E SA!E <AS NO LE=AL BASIS AND ,<A, ,<E

RES0ONDEN, RE,AINED ,<E ,I,LE ,O <IS 0RO0ER,H DES0I,E ,<E DARJS

NO,ICE OF ACK@ISI,ION

V,<A, ,<E ,RIAL CO@R, <AD VALIDLH =RAN,ED EEC@,ION 0ENDIN=

A00EAL ON ,<E ALLE=EDLH =OOD REASON OF ,<E 0E,I,IONERJSADVANCED A=E AND 6EA <EAL,<# CON,RARH ,O ,<E A00LICABLE

*@RIS0R@DENCE AND CONSIDERIN= ,<A, ,<E RES0ONDEN, IS NO,

DES,I,@,E.7,he iss$es for resol$tion are as follows: (2) Did the Regional ,rial Co$rt# acting as

S+ecial Agrarian Co$rt# -alidl ac5$ire &$risdiction o-er the instant case for

deter'ination of &$st co'+ensationQ (7) Ass$'ing that it ac5$ired &$risdiction# was the

co'+ensation arri-ed at s$++orted % e-idenceQ () Can 6coco co'+el the DAR to +$rchase the entire land s$%&ect of the -ol$ntar offer to sellQ (1) 6ere the awards of

interest and da'ages for $nreali>ed +rofits -alidQ

Anent the iss$e of &$risdiction# the laws in +oint are Sections 94 and 9 of Re+$%lic Act No. ;;9 (Co'+rehensi-e Agrarian Refor' Law of 2833) which# in +ertinent +art#

+ro-ide:

Section 94. K$asi/&$dicial 0owers of the DAR. T ,he DAR is here% -ested with +ri'ar &$risdiction to deter'ine and ad&$dicate agrarian refor' 'atters and shall ha-e e"cl$si-e

original &$risdiction o-er all 'atters in-ol-ing the i'+le'entation of agrarian refor'#

e"ce+t those falling $nder the e"cl$si-e &$risdiction of the De+art'ent of Agric$lt$re

(DA) and the De+art'ent of En-iron'ent and Nat$ral Reso$rces (DENR)W.Section 9. S+ecial *$risdiction. T ,he S+ecial Agrarian Co$rt shall ha-e original and

e"cl$si-e &$risdiction o-er all +etitions for the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation to

landowners# and the +rosec$tion of all cri'inal offenses $nder this Act.,he S+ecial Agrarian Co$rts shall decide all a++ro+riate cases $nder their s+ecial

&$risdiction within thirt (4) das fro' s$%'ission of the case for decision.

In Re+$%lic -. Co$rt of A++eals#71 it was held that S+ecial Agrarian Co$rts are gi-enoriginal and e"cl$si-e &$risdiction o-er two categories of cases# to wit: (2) all +etitions for

the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation and (7) the +rosec$tion of all cri'inal offenses

$nder R.A. No. ;;9. Section 94 '$st %e constr$ed in har'on with Section 9 %

considering cases in-ol-ing the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation and cri'inal cases for



-iolations of R.A. No. ;;9 as e"ce+ted fro' the +lenit$de of +ower conferred to the

DAR. Indeed# there is a reason for this distinction. ,he DAR# as an ad'inistrati-e

agenc# cannot %e granted &$risdiction o-er cases of e'inent do'ain and o-er cri'inalcases. ,he -al$ation of +ro+ert in e'inent do'ain is essentiall a &$dicial f$nction

which is -ested with the S+ecial Agrarian Co$rts and cannot %e lodged with

ad'inistrati-e agencies.79 In fact# R$le III# Section 22 of the New R$les of 0roced$reof the DARAB acnowledges this +ower of the co$rt# th$s T

Section 22. Land Val$ation and 0reli'inar Deter'ination and 0a'ent of *$st

Co'+ensation. ,he decision of the Ad&$dicator on land -al$ation and +reli'inardeter'ination and +a'ent of &$st co'+ensation shall not %e a++eala%le to the Board %$t

shall %e %ro$ght directl to the Regional ,rial Co$rts designated as S+ecial Agrarian

Co$rts within fifteen (29) das fro' recei+t of the notice thereof. An +art shall %e

entitled to onl one 'otion for reconsideration. (E'+hasis s$++lied)@nder Section 2 of E"ec$ti-e Order No. 149# Series of 2884# the Land Ban of the

0hili++ines is charged with the initial res+onsi%ilit of deter'ining the -al$e of lands

+laced $nder land refor' and the &$st co'+ensation to %e +aid for their taing.7;

,hro$gh a notice of -ol$ntar offer to sell (VOS) s$%'itted % the landowner#acco'+anied % the re5$ired doc$'ents# the DAR e-al$ates the a++lication and

deter'ines the landJs s$ita%ilit for agric$lt$re. ,he LB0 liewise re-iews the a++licationand the s$++orting doc$'ents and deter'ines the -al$ation of the land. ,hereafter# the

DAR iss$es the Notice of Land Val$ation to the landowner. In %oth -ol$ntar and

co'+$lsor ac5$isition# where the landowner re&ects the offer# the DAR o+ens an acco$ntin the na'e of the landowner and cond$cts a s$''ar ad'inistrati-e +roceeding. If the

landowner disagrees with the -al$ation# the 'atter 'a %e %ro$ght to the Regional ,rial

Co$rt acting as a s+ecial agrarian co$rt. ,his in essence is the +roced$re for the

deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation.7In Land Ban of the 0hili++ines -. Co$rt of A++eals#73 the landowner filed an action for

deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation witho$t waiting for the co'+letion of DARABJs re/

e-al$ation of the land. ,his# notwithstanding# the Co$rt held that the trial co$rt +ro+erlac5$ired &$risdiction %eca$se of its e"cl$si-e and original &$risdiction o-er deter'ination

of &$st co'+ensation# th$s T

WIt is clear fro' Sec. 9 that the R,C# sitting as a S+ecial Agrarian Co$rt# has originaland e"cl$si-e &$risdiction o-er all +etitions for the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation to

landowners. ,his original and e"cl$si-e &$risdiction of the R,C wo$ld %e $nder'ined

if the DAR wo$ld -est in ad'inistrati-e officials original &$risdiction in co'+ensation

cases and 'ae the R,C an a++ellate co$rt for the re-iew of ad'inistrati-e decisions.,h$s# altho$gh the new r$les s+ea of directl a++ealing the decision of ad&$dicators to

the R,Cs sitting as S+ecial Agrarian Co$rts# it is clear fro' Sec. 9 that the original and

e"cl$si-e &$risdiction to deter'ine s$ch cases is in the R,Cs. An effort to transfer s$ch &$risdiction to the ad&$dicators and to con-ert the original &$risdiction of the R,Cs into an

a++ellate &$risdiction wo$ld %e contrar to Sec. 9 and therefore wo$ld %e -oid. ,h$s#

direct resort to the SAC S+ecial Agrarian Co$rtP% +ri-ate res+ondent is -alid.(E'+hasis s$++lied)78

In the case at %ar# therefore# the trial co$rt +ro+erl ac5$ired &$risdiction o-er 6cocoJs

co'+laint for deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation. It '$st %e stressed that altho$gh no

s$''ar ad'inistrati-e +roceeding was held %efore the DARAB# LB0 was a%le to



+erfor' its legal 'andate of initiall deter'ining the -al$e of 6cocoJs land +$rs$ant to

E"ec$ti-e Order No. 149# Series of 2884. 6hat is 'ore# DAR and LB0Js confor'it to

the +re/trial order which li'ited the iss$e onl to the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensationesto++ed the' fro' 5$estioning the &$risdiction of the s+ecial agrarian co$rt. ,he +re/

trial order li'ited the iss$es to those not dis+osed of % ad'ission or agree'ents and the

entr thereof controlled the s$%se5$ent co$rse of action.4Besides# the iss$e of whether 6coco -iolated the r$le on e"ha$stion of ad'inistrati-e

re'edies was rendered 'oot and acade'ic in -iew of the DARABJs dis'issal2 of the

ad'inistrati-e case to gi-e wa to and in recognition of the co$rtJs +ower to deter'ine &$st co'+ensation.7

In arri-ing at the -al$ation of 6cocoJs land# the trial co$rt too &$dicial notice of the

alleged +re-ailing 'aret -al$e of agric$lt$ral lands in Lica%# N$e-a Eci&a witho$t

a++rising the +arties of its intention to tae &$dicial notice thereof. Section # R$le 278 of the R$les on E-idence +ro-ides:

Sec. . *$dicial Notice# 6hen <earing Necessar. T D$ring the trial# the co$rt# on its own

initiati-e# or on re5$est of a +art# 'a anno$nce its intention to tae &$dicial notice of

an 'atter and allow the +arties to %e heard thereon.After trial and %efore &$dg'ent or on a++eal# the +ro+er co$rt# on its own initiati-e# or on

re5$est of a +art# 'a tae &$dicial notice of an 'atter and allow the +arties to %e heardthereon if s$ch 'atter is decisi-e of a 'aterial iss$e in the case.

Inas'$ch as the -al$ation of the +ro+ert of 6coco is the -er iss$e in the case at %ar#

the trial co$rt sho$ld ha-e allowed the +arties to +resent e-idence thereon instead of +racticall ass$'ing a -al$ation witho$t %asis. 6hile 'aret -al$e 'a %e one of the

%ases of deter'ining &$st co'+ensation# the sa'e cannot %e ar%itraril arri-ed at witho$t

considering the factors to %e a++reciated in arri-ing at the fair 'aret -al$e of the

+ro+ert e.g.# the cost of ac5$isition# the c$rrent -al$e of lie +ro+erties# its si>e# sha+e#location# as well as the ta" declarations thereon. Since these factors were not

considered# a re'and of the case for deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation is necessar. ,he

+ower to tae &$dicial notice is to %e e"ercised % co$rts with ca$tion es+eciall wherethe case in-ol-es a -ast tract of land. Care '$st %e taen that the re5$isite notoriet

e"ists and e-er reasona%le do$%t on the s$%&ect sho$ld %e +ro'+tl resol-ed in the

negati-e. ,o sa that a co$rt will tae &$dicial notice of a fact is 'erel another wa of saing that the $s$al for' of e-idence will %e dis+ensed with if nowledge of the fact can

%e otherwise ac5$ired. ,his is %eca$se the co$rt ass$'es that the 'atter is so notorio$s

that it will not %e dis+$ted. B$t &$dicial notice is not &$dicial nowledge. ,he 'ere

+ersonal nowledge of the &$dge is not the &$dicial nowledge of the co$rt# and he is nota$thori>ed to 'ae his indi-id$al nowledge of a fact# not generall or +rofessionall

nown# the %asis of his action.1

Anent the third iss$e# the DAR cannot %e co'+elled to +$rchase the entire +ro+ert-ol$ntaril offered % 6coco. ,he +ower to deter'ine whether a +arcel of land 'a

co'e within the co-erage of the Co'+rehensi-e Agrarian Refor' 0rogra' is essentiall

lodged with the DAR. ,hat 6coco will s$ffer da'ages % the DARJs non/ac5$isition of the a++ro"i'atel 24 hectare +ortion of the entire land which was fo$nd to %e not s$ita%le

for agric$lt$re is no &$stification to co'+el DAR to ac5$ire the whole area.

6e find 6cocoJs clai' for +a'ent of interest +artl 'eritorio$s. In Land Ban of the

0hili++ines -. Co$rt of A++eals#9 this Co$rt str$c down as -oid DAR Ad'inistrati-e



Circ$lar No. 8# Series of 2884# which +ro-ides for the o+ening of tr$st acco$nts in lie$ of

the de+osit in cash or in %onds conte'+lated in Section 2; (e) of RA ;;9.

It is -er e"+licit Wfro' Section 2; (e)P that the de+osit '$st %e 'ade onl in cashJ or in LB0 %onds.J Nowhere does it a++ear nor can it %e inferred that the de+osit can %e

'ade in an other for'. If it were the intention to incl$de a tr$st acco$ntJ a'ong the

-alid 'odes of de+osit# that sho$ld ha-e %een 'ade e"+ress# or at least# 5$alifing wordso$ght to ha-e a++eared fro' which it can %e fairl ded$ced that a tr$st acco$ntJ is

allowed. In s$'# there is no a'%ig$it in Section 2;(e) of RA ;;9 to warrant an

e"+anded constr$ction of the ter' de+osit.J" " " " " " " " "

In the +resent s$it# the DAR clearl o-erste++ed the li'its of its +owers to enact r$les

and reg$lations when it iss$ed Ad'inistrati-e Circ$lar No. 8. ,here is no %asis in

allowing the o+ening of a tr$st acco$nt in %ehalf of the landowner as co'+ensation for his +ro+ert %eca$se# as heretofore disc$ssed# Section 2;(e) of RA ;;9 is -er s+ecific

that the de+osit '$st %e 'ade onl in cashJ or in LB0 %onds.J In the sa'e -ein#

+etitioners cannot in-oe LRA Circ$lar Nos. 78# 78/A and 91 %eca$se these

i'+le'enting reg$lations can not o$tweigh the clear +ro-ision of the law. Res+ondentco$rt therefore did not co''it an error in striing down Ad'inistrati-e Circ$lar No. 8

for %eing n$ll and -oid.;0$rs$ant to the forgoing decision# DAR iss$ed Ad'inistrati-e Order No. 7# Series of

288;# con-erting tr$st acco$nts in the na'e of landowners into de+osit acco$nts. ,he

transitor +ro-ision thereof states T VI. ,RANSI,ORH 0ROVISIONS

All tr$st acco$nts iss$ed +$rs$ant to Ad'inistrati-e Order No. 2# S. 288 co-ering

landholdings not et transferred in the na'e of the Re+$%lic of the 0hili++ines as of *$l

9# 288; shall i''ediatel %e con-erted to de+osit acco$nts in the na'e of the landownersconcerned.

All 0ro-incial Agrarian Refor' Officers and Regional Directors are directed to

i''ediatel in-entor the clai' folders referred to in the +receding +aragra+h# where-er the 'a %e fo$nd and re5$est the LB0 to esta%lish the re5$isite de+osit $nder this

Ad'inistrati-e Order and to iss$e a new certification to that effect. ,he Original

Certificate of ,r$st De+osit +re-io$sl iss$ed sho$ld %e attached to the re5$est of theDAR in order that the sa'e 'a %e re+laced with a new one.

All +re-io$sl esta%lished ,r$st De+osits which ser-ed as the %asis for the transfer of the

landownerJs title to the Re+$%lic of the 0hili++ines shall liewise %e con-erted to

de+osits in cash and in %onds. ,he B$rea$ of Land Ac5$isition and Distri%$tion shallcoordinate with the LB0 for this +$r+ose.

In light of the foregoing# the tr$st acco$nt o+ened % LB0 in the na'e of 6coco as the

'ode of +a'ent of &$st co'+ensation sho$ld %e con-erted to a de+osit acco$nt. S$chcon-ersion sho$ld %e retroacti-e in a++lication in order to rectif the error co''itted %

the DAR in o+ening a tr$st acco$nt and to grant the landowners the %enefits conco'itant

to +a'ent in cash or LB0 %onds +rior to the r$ling of the Co$rt in Land Ban of the0hili++ines -. Co$rt of A++eals. Otherwise# +etitionerJs right to +a'ent of &$st and -alid

co'+ensation for the e"+ro+riation of his +ro+ert wo$ld %e -iolated. ,he interest

earnings accr$ing on the de+osit acco$nt of landowners wo$ld s$ffice to co'+ensate

the' +ending +a'ent of &$st co'+ensation.



In so'e e"+ro+riation cases# the Co$rt i'+osed an interest of 27M +er ann$' on the &$st

co'+ensation d$e the landowner. It '$st %e stressed# howe-er# that in these cases# the

i'+osition of interest was in the nat$re of da'ages for dela in +a'ent which in effect'aes the o%ligation on the +art of the go-ern'ent one of for%earance.3 It follows that

the interest in the for' of da'ages cannot %e a++lied where there was +ro'+t and -alid

+a'ent of &$st co'+ensation. Con-ersel# where there was dela in tendering a -alid +a'ent of &$st co'+ensation# i'+osition of interest is in order. ,his is %eca$se the

re+lace'ent of the tr$st acco$nt with cash or LB0 %onds did not i+so facto c$re the lac

of co'+ensation for essentiall# the deter'ination of this co'+ensation was 'arred %lac of d$e +rocess.8

Accordingl# the &$st co'+ensation d$e 6coco sho$ld %ear 27M interest +er ann$'

fro' the ti'e LB0 o+ened a tr$st acco$nt in his na'e $+ to the ti'e said acco$nt was

act$all con-erted into cash and LB0 %onds de+osit acco$nts. ,he %asis of the 27Minterest wo$ld %e the &$st co'+ensation that wo$ld %e deter'ined % the S+ecial Agrarian

Co$rt $+on re'and of the instant case. In the sa'e -ein# the a'o$nt deter'ined % the

S+ecial Agrarian Co$rt wo$ld also %e the %asis of the interest inco'e on the cash and

%ond de+osits d$e 6coco fro' the ti'e of the taing of the +ro+ert $+ to the ti'e of act$al +a'ent of &$st co'+ensation.

,he award of act$al da'ages for $nreali>ed +rofits sho$ld %e deleted. ,he a'o$nt of loss'$st not onl %e ca+a%le of +roof# %$t '$st %e +ro-en with a reasona%le degree of

certaint. ,he clai' '$st %e +re'ised $+on co'+etent +roof or $+on the %est e-idence

o%taina%le# s$ch as recei+ts or other doc$'entar +roof.14 None ha-ing %een +resentedin the instant case# the clai' for $nreali>ed +rofits cannot %e granted.

Fro' the foregoing disc$ssion# it is clear that 6cocoJs +etition for 'anda'$s in =.R.

No. 21; sho$ld %e dis'issed. ,he decision of the Regional ,rial Co$rt of Ca%anat$an

Cit# Branch 7# acting as S+ecial Agrarian Co$rt in Agrarian Case No. 82 (AF)# cannot %e enforced %eca$se there is a need to re'and the case to the trial co$rt for deter'ination

of &$st co'+ensation. Liewise# the +raer for the inhi%ition of *$dge Rodrigo S. Cas+illo

in Agrarian Case No. 82 (AF) is denied for lac of %asis.6<EREFORE# in -iew of all the foregoing# the +etition in =.R. No. 2142;4 is

0AR,IALLH =RAN,ED. Agrarian Case No. 82 (AF) is RE!ANDED to the Regional

,rial Co$rt of Ca%anat$an Cit# Branch 7# for the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation.,he +etition for 'anda'$s in =.R. No. 21; is dis'issed.

SO ORDERED.

CI,H OF !ANILA# +etitioner# -s. OSCAR# FELICI,AS# *OSE# BEN*A!IN#

ES,ELI,A# LEONORA# and ADELAIDA# all s$rna'ed SERRANO#

res+ondents.

D E C I S I O N

!ENDOA# *.:

,his is a +etition for re-iew on certiorari of the decision# dated No-e'%er 2;# 2888#

and resol$tion# dated Fe%r$ar 7# 7444# of the Co$rt of A++eals re-ersing the order#



dated Dece'%er 29# 2883# of the Regional ,rial Co$rt# Branch 2;# !anila and +er+et$all

en&oining it fro' +roceeding with +etitionerJs co'+laint for e'inent do'ain in Ci-il

Case No. 81/7737.

,he facts are as follows:

On Dece'%er 72# 288# the Cit Co$ncil of !anila enacted Ordinance No. 3#a$thori>ing the e"+ro+riation of certain +ro+erties in !anilaJs First District in ,ondo#co-ered % ,C, Nos. 43;8# 249742# 249747# and 237 of the Register of Deeds of

!anila# which are to %e sold and distri%$ted to 5$alified occ$+ants +$rs$ant to the Land

@se De-elo+'ent 0rogra' of the Cit of !anila.

One of the +ro+erties so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated# deno'inated as Lot 2/C# consists of 1.24 s5$are 'eters. It is co-ered % ,C, No. 2377 which was deri-ed fro' ,C,

No. 43;8 iss$ed in the na'e of Feli>a De =$ia.2Pﾧ After her death# the estate of Feli>a

De =$ia was settled a'ong her heirs % -irt$e of a co'+ro'ise agree'ent# which was

d$l a++ro-ed % the Regional ,rial Co$rt# Branch 9# !anila in its decision# dated !a3# 283;.7Pﾧ In 2838# Al%erto De =$ia# one of the heirs of Feli>a De =$ia# died# as a

res$lt of which his estate# consisting of his share in the +ro+erties left % his 'other# was +artitioned a'ong his heirs. Lot 2/C was assigned to Edgardo De =$ia# one of the heirs

of Al%erto De =$ia.P ﾧ On A+ril 29# 2881# Edgardo De =$ia was iss$ed ,C, No.

72998# co-ering Lot 2/C.1Pﾧ On *$l 78# 2881# the said +ro+ert was transferred to Lee

$an <$i# in whose na'e ,C, No. 72423 was iss$ed.9Pﾧ

,he +ro+ert was s$%se5$entl sold on *an$ar 71# 288; to De'etria De =$ia to

who' ,C, No. 77;413 was iss$ed.;Pﾧ

On Se+te'%er 7;# 288# +etitioner Cit of !anila filed an a'ended co'+laint for

e"+ro+riation# doceted as Ci-il Case No. 81/7737# with the Regional ,rial Co$rt#Branch 2;# !anila# against the s$++osed owners of the lots co-ered % ,C, Nos. 43;8

(incl$ding Lot 2/C)# 249742# 249747# and 237# which incl$ded herein res+ondentsOscar# Felicitas# *ose# Ben&a'in# Estelita# Leonora# Adelaida# all s$rna'ed Serrano.Pﾧ

On No-e'%er 27# 288# res+ondents filed a consolidated answer# in which the allegedthat their 'other# the late De'etria De =$ia# had ac5$ired Lot 2/C fro' Lee ian <$i

that the had %een the %ona fide occ$+ants of the said +arcel of land for 'ore than 14

ears that the e"+ro+riation of Lot 2/C wo$ld res$lt in their dislocation# it %eing the onlresidential land left to the' % their deceased 'other and that the said lot was e"e'+t

fro' e"+ro+riation %eca$se di-iding the said +arcel of land a'ong the' wo$ld entitle

each of the' to onl a%o$t 94 s5$are 'eters of land. Res+ondents# therefore# +raed that &$dg'ent %e rendered declaring Lot 2/C e"e'+t fro' e"+ro+riation and ordering the

cancellation of the notice annotated on the %ac of ,C, No. 77;413# 3Pﾧ regarding the

+endenc of Ci-il Case No. 81/7737 for e'inent do'ain filed % +etitioner.8Pﾧ

@+on 'otion % +etitioner# the trial co$rt iss$ed an order# dated Octo%er 8# 2883#

directing +etitioner to de+osit the a'o$nt of 02#379#712.44 e5$i-alent to the assessed

-al$e of the +ro+erties.24Pﾧ After +etitioner had 'ade the de+osit# the trial co$rt iss$ed

another order# dated Dece'%er 29# 2883# directing the iss$ance of a writ of +ossession infa-or of +etitioner .22Pﾧ

Res+ondents filed a +etition for certiorari with the Co$rt of A++eals# alleging that the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/142304.htm#_edn1

























e"+ro+riation of Lot 2/C wo$ld render res+ondents# who are act$al occ$+ants thereof#

landless that Lot 2/C is e"e'+t fro' e"+ro+riation %eca$se R.A. No. 78 +ro-ides that

+ro+erties consisting of residential lands not e"ceeding 44 s5$are 'eters in highl$r%ani>ed cities are e"e'+t fro' e"+ro+riation that res+ondents wo$ld onl recei-e

aro$nd 18 s5$are 'eters each after the +artition of Lot 2/C which consists of onl 1.24

s5$are 'eters and that R.A. No. 78 was not 'eant to de+ri-e an owner of the entireresidential land %$t onl that in e"cess of 44 s5$are 'eters.27Pﾧ

On No-e'%er 2;# 2888# the Co$rt of A++eals rendered a decision holding that Lot 2/

C is not e"e'+t fro' e"+ro+riation %eca$se it $ndenia%l e"ceeds 44 s5$are 'eters

which is no longer considered a s'all +ro+ert within the fra'ewor of R.A. No. 78.<owe-er# it held that in accordance with the r$ling inFilstrea' International Inc. -. Co$rt

of A++eals#2Pﾧ the other 'odes of ac5$isition of lands en$'erated in XX8/24 of the law

'$st first %e tried % the cit go-ern'ent %efore it can resort to e"+ro+riation. As

+etitioner failed to show that it had done so# the Co$rt of A++eals ga-e &$dg'ent for

res+ondents and en&oined +etitioner fro' e"+ro+riating Lot 2/C. ,he dis+ositi-e +ortionof its decision reads:

6<EREFORE# in -iew of all the foregoing# the instant +etition is here% =IVEN D@E

CO@RSE and accordingl =RAN,ED. ,he Order# dated Dece'%er 29# 2883# dening

+etitionersJ 'otion for reconsideration iss$ed % res+ondent Regional ,rial Co$rt of !anila# Branch 2;# in Ci-il Case No. 81/7737 is here% REVERSED and SE, ASIDE.

Let a writ of in&$nction iss$e +er+et$all en&oining the sa'e res+ondent co$rt fro'

+roceeding with the co'+laint for e'inent do'ain in Ci-il Case No. 81/7737.21Pﾧ

In its resol$tion# dated Fe%r$ar 7# 7444# the Co$rt of A++eals liewise denied two'otions for reconsideration filed % +etitioner.29P ﾧ <ence this +etition. 0etitioner

contends that the Co$rt of A++eals erred in Y

2) =i-ing d$e co$rse to the 0etition of the Serranos $nder R$le ;9 notwithstanding itsown declaration of the i'+ro+riet of the resort to the writ and filing thereof with the

wrong a++ellate co$rt7) Concl$ding that the Order of Octo%er 8# 2883 which a$thori>es the i''ediate entr of

the Cit as the e"+ro+riating agenc into the +ro+ert so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated $+on the

de+osit of the +ro-isionall fi"ed fair 'aret -al$e thereof as tanta'o$nt toconde'nation of the +ro+ert witho$t +rior showing of co'+liance with the ac5$isition

of other lands en$'erated in Sec. 8 of R.A. 78 ergo a -iolation of d$e +rocess to the

Serranos % the doctrinaire a++lication of FILS,REA! r$ling and corrollaril#) In +rohi%iting +er'anentl# % writ of in&$nction# the trial co$rt fro' +roceeding with

a co'+laint for e"+ro+riation of the Cit in Ci-il Case No. 81/7737.2;Pﾧ

6e will deal with these contentions in the order the are +resented.

First. 0etitioner contends that res+ondentsJ re'ed against the order of the trial co$rt

granting a writ of +ossession was not to file a +etition for certiorari $nder R$le ;9 %$t a +etition for re-iew $nder R$le 19 which sho$ld ha-e %een filed in the S$+re'e Co$rt.

2Pﾧ

,his contention has no 'erit. A +etition for re-iew $nder R$le 19 is a 'ode of

a++eal. Accordingl# it co$ld not ha-e %een resorted to % res+ondents inas'$ch as the















order of the trial co$rt granting a writ of +ossession was 'erel interloc$tor fro' which

no a++eal co$ld %e taen. R$le 19# X2 of the 288 R$les of Ci-il 0roced$re a++lies onl

to final &$dg'ents or orders of the Co$rt of A++eals# the Sandigan%aan# and theRegional ,rial Co$rt. On the other hand# a +etition for certiorari is the s$ita%le re'ed in

-iew of R$le ;9# X2 which +ro-ides:

6hen an tri%$nal# %oard or officer e"ercising &$dicial or 5$asi/&$dicial f$nctions hasacted witho$t or in e"cess of its or his &$risdiction# or with gra-e a%$se of discretion

a'o$nting to lac or e"cess of &$risdiction# and there is no a++eal# nor an +lain# s+eed#

and ade5$ate re'ed in the ordinar co$rse of law# a +erson aggrie-ed there% 'a file a

-erified +etition in the +ro+er co$rt# alleging the facts with certaint and +raing that &$dg'ent %e rendered ann$lling or 'odifing the +roceedings of s$ch tri%$nal# %oard or

officer# and granting s$ch incidental reliefs as law and &$stice 'a re5$ire.

Res+ondentsJ +etition %efore the Co$rt of A++eals alleged that the trial co$rt hadacted witho$t or in e"cess of its &$risdiction or with gra-e a%$se of discretion a'o$nting

to lac of &$risdiction in iss$ing the order# dated Dece'%er 29# 2883# resol-ing that Lot 2/

C is not e"e'+t fro' e"+ro+riation and ordering the iss$ance of the writ of +ossession infa-or of +etitioner .23Pﾧ

Second. 0etitioner fa$lts the Co$rt of A++eals for deciding iss$es not raised in the

trial co$rt# s+ecificall the 5$estion of whether or not there was co'+liance with XX8 and

24 of R.A. No. 78. It arg$es that the sole defense set $+ % res+ondents in their +etition %efore the Co$rt of A++eals was that their +ro+ert was e"e'+ted fro'

e"+ro+riation %eca$se it co'es within the +$r-iew of a ?s'all +ro+ert as defined %

R.A. No. 78. Accordingl# the Co$rt of A++eals sho$ld not ha-e a++lied the doctrine

laid down % this Co$rt in the Filstrea'28P ﾧ case as s$ch iss$e was not raised %

res+ondents in their +etition %efore the Co$rt of A++eals.

,his contention liewise has no 'erit. In their +etition %efore the Co$rt of A++eals#res+ondents raised the following iss$es:

2. 6hether or not the s$%&ect Lot 2/C with an area of 1.24 s5$are 'eters

co-ered % ,.C.,. No. 77;413 in the na'e of +etitionersJ 'other# the lateDe'etria De =$iaP Serrano# 'a %e lawf$ll e"+ro+riated ?for the +$%lic

+$r+ose of +ro-iding landless occ$+ants thereof ho'elots of their own $nder

the ?land/for/the/landless +rogra' of res+ondent Cit of !anila.

7. 6hether or not the e"+ro+riation of the said Lot 2/C % res+ondent Cit of

!anila -iolates the e5$al +rotection cla$se of the Constit$tion# since

+etitioners# with the e"ce+tion of +etitioner Oscar =. Serrano# who are

liewise landless are act$al occ$+ants hereof.. 6hether or not Lot 2/C is or 'a %e e"e'+ted fro' e"+ro+riation +$rs$ant

to R.A. 78# otherwise nown as the @r%an De-elo+'ent and <o$sing Act

of 2887.74Pﾧ

It is clear that res+ondents raised in iss$e the +ro+riet of the e"+ro+riation of their +ro+ert in connection with R.A. No. 78. Altho$gh what was disc$ssed at length in

their +etition %efore the Co$rt of A++eals was whether or not the said +ro+ert co$ld %e










considered a s'all +ro+ert within the +$r-iew of the e"e'+tion $nder the said law# the

other +ro-isions of the said law concerning e"+ro+riation +roceedings need also %e

looed into to address the first iss$e raised % res+ondents and to deter'ine whether or not e"+ro+riation of Lot 2/C was +ro+er $nder the circ$'stances. ,he Co$rt of A++eals

+ro+erl considered rele-ant +ro-isions of R.A. No. 78 to deter'ine the iss$es raised

% res+ondents. 6hether or not it correctl a++lied the doctrine laid down in Filstrea' inresol-ing the iss$es raised % res+ondents# howe-er# is a different 'atter altogether# and

this %rings $s to the ne"t +oint.

,hird. 0etitioner contends that the Co$rt of A++eals erroneo$sl +res$'ed that Lot

2/C has %een ordered conde'ned in its fa-or when the fact is that the order of the trialco$rt# dated Dece'%er 29# 2883# 'erel a$thori>ed the iss$ance of a writ of +ossession

and +etitionerJs entr into the +ro+ert +$rs$ant to R$le ;# X7. At that stage# it was

+re'at$re to deter'ine whether the re5$ire'ents of R.A. No. 78# XX8/24 ha-e %eenco'+lied with since no e-identiar hearing had et %een cond$cted % the trial co$rt. 72P

ﾧ

,his contention is well taen. R$le ;# X7 +ro-ides:@+on the filing of the co'+laint or at an ti'e thereafter and after d$e notice to the

defendant# the +laintiff shall ha-e the right to tae or enter $+on the +ossession of the real +ro+ert in-ol-ed if he de+osits with the a$thori>ed go-ern'ent de+ositar an a'o$nt

e5$i-alent to the assessed -al$e of the +ro+ert for +$r+oses of ta"ation to %e held %

s$ch %an s$%&ect to the orders of the co$rt. S$ch de+osit shall %e in 'one# $nless inlie$ thereof the co$rt a$thori>es the de+osit of a certificate of de+osit of a go-ern'ent

%an of the Re+$%lic of the 0hili++ines +aa%le on de'and to the a$thori>ed go-ern'ent

de+ositar.

If +ersonal +ro+ert is in-ol-ed# its -al$e shall %e +ro-isionall ascertained and thea'o$nt to %e de+osited shall %e fi"ed % the co$rt.

After s$ch de+osit is 'ade the co$rt shall order the sheriff or other +ro+er officer toforthwith +lace the +laintiff in +ossession of the +ro+ert in-ol-ed and +ro'+tl s$%'it are+ort thereof to the co$rt with ser-ice of co+ies to the +arties.

,h$s# a writ of e"ec$tion 'a %e iss$ed % a co$rt $+on the filing % the go-ern'ent

of a co'+laint for e"+ro+riation s$fficient in for' and s$%stance and $+on de+osit 'ade % the go-ern'ent of the a'o$nt e5$i-alent to the assessed -al$e of the +ro+ert s$%&ect

to e"+ro+riation. @+on co'+liance with these re5$ire'ents# the iss$ance of the writ of

+ossession %eco'es 'inisterial.77Pﾧ In this case# these re5$ire'ents were satisfied and#

therefore# it %eca'e the 'inisterial d$t of the trial co$rt to iss$e the writ of +ossession.

,he Co$rt of A++eals# howe-er# r$led that +etitioner failed to co'+l with the

re5$ire'ents laid down in XX8/24 of R.A. No. 78 and reiterated in theFilstrea' r$ling.,his is error. ,he r$ling in Filstrea' was necessitated %eca$se an order of conde'nation

had alread %een iss$ed % the trial co$rt in that case. ,h$s# the &$dg'ent in that case hadalread %eco'e final. In this case# the trial co$rt has not gone %eond the iss$ance of a

writ of +ossession. <earing is still to %e held to deter'ine whether or not +etitioner

indeed co'+lied with the re5$ire'ents +ro-ided in R.A. No. 78. It is# therefore# +re'at$re at this stage of the +roceedings to find that +etitioner resorted to e"+ro+riation

witho$t first tring the other 'odes of ac5$isition en$'erated in X24 of the law.








SO ORDERED.

RE0@BLIC VS. =IN=OHON# digested

=R Z 2;;178# Dece'%er 28# 7449 (Constit$tional Law T E'inent Do'ain#

E"+ro+riation# *$st Co'+ensation)

FAC,S: NAIA # a +ro&ect %etween the =o-ern'ent and the 0hili++ine International Air

,er'inals Co.# Inc (0IA,CO) was n$llified.

0lanning to +$t NAIA facilities into i''ediate o+eration# the =o-ern'ent# thro$gh

e"+ro+riation filed a +etition to %e entitled of a writ of +ossession contending that a 'ere

de+osit of the assessed -al$e of the +ro+ert with an a$thori>ed go-ern'ent de+ositor is

eno$gh for the entitle'ent to said writ (R$le ; of the R$les of Co$rt).

<owe-er# res+ondents a-ers that %efore an entitle'ent of the writ of +ossession is iss$ed#

direct +a'ent of &$st co'+ensation '$st %e 'ade to the %$ilders of the facilities# citing

RA No. 381 and a related &$ris+r$dence (7441 Resol$tion).

ISS@E: 6ON e"+ro+riation can %e cond$cted % 'ere de+osit of the assessed -al$e of

the +ro+ert.

<ELD: No# in e"+ro+riation +roceedings# entitle'ent of writ of +ossession is iss$ed onl

after direct +a'ent of &$st co'+ensation is gi-en to +ro+ert owner on the %asis of

fairness. ,he sa'e +rinci+le a++lied in the 7441 *$ris+r$dence Resol$tion and the lateste"+ro+riation law (RA No. 381).

CI,H OF BA=@IO V. NA6ASA 24; 0hil =.R. No. L/2747 2 A$g 2898Pﾧ

Sat$rda# *an$ar 2# 7448 0osted % Coffeeholic 6ritesLa%els: Case Digests ﾧ# 0olitical Law ﾧ

Facts: 0laintiff a '$nici+al cor+oration filed a co'+laint against defendant a +$%lic

cor+oration# created $nder Act.23. It contends that the said act does not incl$de within

its +$r-iew the Bag$io 6ater 6ors sste'# ass$'ing that it does# is $nconstit$tional

%eca$se it de+ri-es the +laintiff ownershi+# control and o+eration of said water wors

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/city-of-baguio-v-nawasa-106-phil-gr-no.html

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/search/label/Case%20Digests

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Law

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/city-of-baguio-v-nawasa-106-phil-gr-no.html

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/search/label/Case%20Digests

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Law



witho$t &$st co'+ensation and d$e +rocess of law. ,he defendant filed a 'otion to

dis'iss ion the gro$nd that it is not a +ro+er e"ercise of +olice +ower and e'inent

do'ain. ,he co$rt denied the 'otion and ordered the defendants to file an answer. ,he

co$rt holds that the water wors sste' of Bag$io %elongs to +ri-ate +ro+ert and cannot

%e e"+ro+riated witho$t &$st co'+ensation. Sec. 3 of R.A.23 +ro-ides for the e"changeof the NA6ASA assets for the -al$e of the water wors sste' of Bag$io is

$nconstit$tional for this is not &$st co'+ensation. Defendants 'otion for reconsideration

was denied hence this a++eal.

Iss$e: 6hether or Not there is a -alid e"ercise of +olice +ower ofe'inent do'ain.

<eld: R.A. 23 does not constit$te a -alid e"ercise of +olice +ower. ,he act does notconfiscate# destro or a++ro+riate +ro+ert %elonging to a '$nici+al cor+oration. It

'erel directs that all water wors %elonging to cities# '$nici+alities and '$nici+al

districts in the 0hili++ines to %e transferred to the NA6ASA. ,he +$r+ose is +lacing the'

$nder the control and s$+er-ision of an agenc with a -iew to +ro'oting their efficient

'anage'ent# %$t in so doing does not confiscate the' %eca$se it directs that the %e +aid

with e5$al -al$e of the assets of NA6ASA.

,he Bag$io water wors sste' is not lie a +$%lic road# the +ar# street other +$%lic

+ro+ert held in tr$st % a '$nici+al cor+oration for the %enefit of the +$%lic. B$t it is a

+ro+ert of a '$nici+al cor+oration# water wors cannot %e taen awa e"ce+t for +$%lic

$se and $+on +a'ent of &$st co'+ensation. *$dg'ent affir'ed.

a'%oanga Del Norte -s. a'%oanga Cit

Doctrine: In the case of state +ro+erties# +ro+erties for +$%lic ser-ice are of +$%lic

do'inion this is not so in the case of +ro-inces# cities# etc.# said +ro+erties for +$%lic

ser-ice are +atri'onial since the are not for +$%lic $se.

Facts: 0rior to its incor+oration as a chartered cit# the !$nici+alit of a'%oanga $sed

to %e the +ro-incial ca+ital of the then a'%oanga 0ro-ince. On Octo%er 27# 28;#

Co''onwealth Act 8 was a++ro-ed con-erting the !$nici+alit of a'%oanga into



a'%oanga Cit.

Sec. 94 of the said Act also +ro-ided that B$ildings and +ro+erties which the +ro-ince

shall a%andon $+on the transfer of the ca+ital to another +lace will %e ac5$ired and +aid

for % the Cit of a'%oanga at a +rice to %e fi"ed % the A$ditor =eneral.

,he +ro+erties and %$ildings referred to consisted of 94 lots and so'e %$ildings

constr$cted thereon# located in the Cit of a'%oanga and co-ered indi-id$all %

,orrens certificates of title in the na'e of a'%oanga 0ro-ince.

It a++ears that in 2819# the ca+ital of a'%oanga 0ro-ince was transferred to Di+olog.

S$%se5$entl# Re+$%lic Act 73; was a++ro-ed. creating the '$nici+alit of !ola-e and

'aing it the ca+ital of a'%oanga 0ro-ince.

Re+$%lic Act 22 was a++ro-ed di-iding the +ro-ince of a'%oanga into two (7):

a'%oanga del Norte and a'%oanga del S$r.

,he A$ditor =eneral# a++ortioned the assets and o%ligations of the def$nct 0ro-ince of

a'%oanga as follows: 91.8M for a'%oanga del Norte and 19.;2M for a'%oanga del

S$r.

,he E"ec$ti-e Secretar# % order of the 0resident# iss$ed a r$ling holding thata'%oanga del Norte had a -ested right as owner (sho$ld %e co/owner +ro/indi-iso) of

the +ro+erties 'entioned in Sec. 94 of Co''onwealth Act 8# and is entitled to the +rice

thereof# +aa%le % a'%oanga Cit. ,his r$ling re-oed the +re-io$s Ca%inet

Resol$tion con-eing all the said 94 lots and %$ildings thereon to a'%oanga Cit for

02.44# effecti-e as of 2819# when the +ro-incial ca+ital of the then a'%oanga 0ro-ince

was transferred to Di+olog.

Iss$e: 6hether all the +ro+erties concerned are +atri'onial +ro+erties.

<eld: ,here are two conflicting a++lica%le laws in the case at %ar. A++ling the New Ci-il

Code# if the +ro+ert is owned % the '$nici+alit ('eaning '$nici+al cor+oration) in its

+$%lic and go-ern'ental ca+acit# the +ro+ert is +$%lic and Congress has a%sol$te

control o-er it. B$t if the +ro+ert is owned in its +ri-ate or +ro+rietar ca+acit# then it is

+atri'onial and Congress has no a%sol$te control. ,he '$nici+alit cannot %e de+ri-ed



of it witho$t d$e +rocess and +a'ent of &$st co'+ensation. @nder the said law# all the

+ro+erties in 5$estion# e"ce+t the two (7) lots $sed as <igh School +lagro$nds# co$ld %e

considered as +atri'onial +ro+erties of the for'er a'%oanga +ro-ince. E-en the ca+ital

site# the hos+ital and le+rosari$' sites# and the school sites will %e considered +atri'onial

for the are not for +$%lic $se. ,he wo$ld fall $nder the +hrase ?+$%lic wors for +$%lic

ser-ice for it has %een held that $nder the e&$sde' generis r$le# s$ch +$%lic wors '$st

%e for free and indiscri'inate $se % anone# &$st lie the +receding en$'erated

+ro+erties in the first +aragra+h of Art 171. ,he +lagro$nds# howe-er# wo$ld fit into this

categor.

On the other hand# a++ling the nor' o%taining $nder the +rinci+les constit$ting the law

of !$nici+al Cor+orations# all those of the 94 +ro+erties in 5$estion which are de-oted to

+$%lic ser-ice are dee'ed +$%lic the rest re'ain +atri'onial. @nder this nor'# to %e

considered +$%lic# it is eno$gh that the +ro+ert %e held and# de-oted for go-ern'ental

+$r+oses lie local ad'inistration# +$%lic ed$cation# +$%lic health# etc. @nder the

afore'entioned law# Re+$%lic Act 48 is -alid insofar as it affects the lots $sed as

ca+itol site# school sites and its gro$nds# hos+ital and le+rosari$' sites and the high

school +lagro$nd sites a total of 71 lots since these were held % the for'er

a'%oanga +ro-ince in its go-ern'ental ca+acit and therefore are s$%&ect to the

a%sol$te control of Congress.

,he records do not disclose whether the were constr$cted at the e"+ense of the for'er 0ro-ince of a'%oanga. Considering howe-er the fact that said %$ildings '$st ha-e %een

erected e-en %efore 28; when Co''onwealth Act 8 was enacted and the f$rther fact

that +ro-inces then had no +ower to a$thori>e constr$ction of %$ildings s$ch as those in

the case at %ar at their own e"+ense# 21 it can %e ass$'ed that said %$ildings were erected

% the National =o-ern'ent# $sing national f$nds. <ence# Congress co$ld -er well

dis+ose of said %$ildings in the sa'e 'anner that it did with the lots in 5$estion.

B$t e-en ass$'ing that +ro-incial f$nds were $sed# still the %$ildings constit$te 'ere

accessories to the lands# which are +$%lic in nat$re# and so# the follow the nat$re of said

lands# i.e.# +$%lic. !oreo-er# said %$ildings# tho$gh located in the cit# will not %e for the

e"cl$si-e $se and %enefit of cit residents for the co$ld %e a-ailed of also % the

+ro-incial residents. ,he +ro-ince then and its s$ccessors/in/interest are not reall

de+ri-ed of the %enefits thereof.



B$t Re+$%lic Act 48 cannot %e a++lied to de+ri-e a'%oanga del Norte of its share in

the -al$e of the rest of the 7; re'aining lots which are +atri'onial +ro+erties since the

are not %eing $tili>ed for distinctl# go-ern'ental +$r+oses.

,he fact that these 7; lots are registered strengthens the +ro+osition that the are tr$l

+ri-ate in nat$re. On the other hand# that the 71 lots $sed for go-ern'ental +$r+oses are

also registered is of no significance since registration cannot con-ert +$%lic +ro+ert to

+ri-ate.

In fine# the Co$rt ordered herein defendant a'%oanga Cit to ret$rn to +laintiff

a'%oanga del Norte in l$'+ s$' the a'o$nt of 01#44.22 which the for'er too %ac

fro' the latter o$t of the s$' of 09#.1; +re-io$sl +aid to the latter. Secondl# the

defendants were ordered to effect +a'ents in fa-or of +laintiff of whate-er %alance

re'ains of +laintiffJs 91.8M share in the 7; +atri'onial +ro+erties# after ded$cting

therefro' the s$' of 09#.1;# on the %asis of Resol$tion No. dated !arch 7;# 2818

of the A++raisal Co''ittee for'ed % the A$ditor =eneral# % wa of 5$arterl

+a'ents fro' the allot'ents of defendant Cit# in the 'anner originall ado+ted % the

Secretar of Finance and the Co''issioner of Internal Re-en$e.

constitutional law (just compensation cases)

Documents