eusebio vs santos.doc

7/27/2019 EUSEBIO VS SANTOS.doc

1/6

G.R. No. 162474 October 13, 2009

HON. VICENTE P. EUSEBIO, ORN! !. BERN!R"O, VICTOR EN"RIG!, #$% t&e CIT' O(

P!SIG,Petitioners,vs.)OVITO *. UIS, I"INI! UIS S!NTOS, !NGEIT! C!G!ING!N, RO*EO *. UIS, #$%

VIRGINI! UIS+BEESTEROS,*

Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PER!T!, J.:

This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, pr!in" tht theDe#ision$of the Court of %ppels &C%' dted Nove()er +, -, ffir(in" the tril #ourt ud"(ent, ndthe C% Resolutiondted /e)rur! 0, 4, den!in" petitioners1 (otion for re#onsidertion, )e reversednd set side.

The nte#edent f#ts re s follows2

Respondents re the re"istered owners of pr#el of lnd #overed )! Trnsfer Certifi#te of Title Nos.5-53$ nd 5-5+3 with n re of $,5+ sure (eters. Sid pr#el of lnd ws t6en )! the Cit! of Psi"so(eti(e in $3+ nd used s (uni#ipl rod now 6nown s %. Sndovl %venue, 7rn"! Pltiw,Psi" Cit!. On /e)rur! $, $33-, the Sn""unin of Psi" Cit! pssed Resolution No. $5 uthori8in"p!(ents to respondents for sid pr#el of lnd. 9owever, the %pprisl Co((ittee of the Cit! of Psi",in Resolution No. 3-:$- dted O#to)er $3, $33-, ssessed the vlue of the lnd onl! tP$5. persure (eter. In letter dted ;une , $335, respondents reuested the %pprisl Co((ittee to#onsiderP,. per sure (eter s the vlue of their lnd.

One of the respondents lso wrote letter dted Nove()er 5, $334 to teen!ers of use t P5. per sure (eter, or P03-,., )oth with le"l interest of $@ per nnu(fro( the dte of filin" of the #o(plint until full p!(ent. In ddition, respondents pr!ed for p!(ent of(orl nd e>e(plr! d("es, ttorne!1s fees nd #osts.

%fter tril, the RTC rendered De#ision-dted ;nur! , $, the dispositive portion of whi#h reds sfollows2

A9ERE/ORE, in view of the fore"oin", ud"(ent is here)! rendered in fvor of the plintiffs nd "instthe defendnts2
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt3


2/6

$. De#lrin" s IBBE%B nd N;ST the #tion of the defendnts in t6in" the propertiesof plintiffs #overed )! Trnsfer Certifi#tes of Title Nos. 5-53$ nd 5-5+3 without their#onsent nd without the )enefit of n e>proprition pro#eedin"s reuired )! lw in the t6in"of privte propert! for pu)li# use

. Orderin" the defendnts to ointl! RETRN the su)e#t properties to plintiffs with

p!(ent of reson)le rentl for its use in the (ount of P03-,. with le"l interest tthe rte of @ per nnu( fro( the filin" of the instnt Co(plint until full p!(ent is (de

-. In the event tht sid properties #n no lon"er )e returned to the plintiffs s the s(e islred! )ein" used s pu)li# rod 6nown s %. Sndovl %venue, Psi" Cit!, thedefendnts re here)! ordered to ointl! p! the plintiffs the fir nd reson)le vluetherefore t P5,. per sure (eter or totl of P0,3-,. with p!(ent ofreson)le rentl for its use in the (ount of P5. per sure (eter or totlof P03-,., )oth with le"l interest t the rte of @ per nnu( fro( the filin" of theinstnt Co(plint until full p!(ent is (de nd

4. Orderin" the defendnts to ointl! p! the plintiffs ttorne!1s fees in the (ount

of P,..

No pronoun#e(ent s to #osts.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioners then ppeled the #se to the C%, )ut the C% ffir(ed the RTC ud"(ent in its De#ision dtedNove()er +, -. 1avvphi1

Petitioners1 (otion for re#onsidertion of the C% De#ision ws denied per Resolution dted /e)rur! 0,4.

9en#e, this petition where it is lle"ed tht2

I. P7BIC RESPONDENT CORT ERRED IN P9OBDIN T9E RBIN O/ T9E BOAERCORT DESPITE T9E %PP%RENT B%CF O/ ;RISDICTION 7G RE%SON O/PRESCRIPTION O/ PRI=%TE RESPONDENTS1 CB%I< /OR ;ST CO


3/6

CONSEB DESPITE T9E %7SENCE O/ NEBIENCE OR IN%CTION ON T9E P%RT O/PETITIONERS REB%TI=E TO T9E INST%NT CB%I< /OR ;ST COproprition or ne"otited sle, the owner1s #tion to re#over the lnd or the vlue thereof does notpres#ri)e.J The Court went on to re(ind "overn(ent "en#ies not to e>er#ise the power of e(inentdo(in with wnton disre"rd for propert! ri"hts s Se#tion 3, %rti#le III of the Constitution provides thtJprivte propert! shll not )e t6en for pu)li# use without ust #o(penstion.J

The re(inin" issues here re whether respondents re entitled to re"in possession of their propert!t6en )! the #it! "overn(ent in the $3+1s nd, in the event tht sid propert! #n no lon"er )e returned,how should ust #o(penstion to respondents )e deter(ined.

These issues hd )een surel! ddressed in /orfo( Develop(ent Corportion v. Philippine NtionlRilw!s,0whi#h is #losel! nlo"ous to the present #se. In sid erlier #se, the Philippine NtionlRilw!s &PNR' too6 possession of the privte propert! in $30 without "oin" throu"h e>proprition

pro#eedin"s. The Sn Pedro:Cr(on Co((uter Bine Proe#t ws then i(ple(ented with the instlltionof rilrod f#ilities on severl pr#els of lnd, in#ludin" tht of petitioner /orfo(. Sid owner of theprivte propert! then ne"otited with PNR s to the (ount of ust #o(penstion. No "ree(ent hvin")een re#hed, /orfo( filed #o(plint for Re#over! of Possession of Rel Propert! nd?or D("eswith the tril #ourt so(eti(e in %u"ust $33.

In sid #se, the Court held tht )e#use the lndowner did not #t to uestion the l#6 of e>propritionpro#eedin"s for ver! lon" period of ti(e nd even ne"otited with the PNR s to how (u#h it should )epid s ust #o(penstion, sid lndowner is dee(ed to hve wived its ri"ht nd is estopped fro(uestionin" the power of the PNR to e>proprite or the pu)li# use for whi#h the power ws e>er#ised. Itws further de#lred therein tht2

> > > re#over! of possession of the propert! )! the lndowner #n no lon"er )e llowed on the "rounds of

estoppel nd, (ore i(portntl!, of pu)li# poli#! whi#h i(poses upon the pu)li# utilit! the o)li"tion to#ontinue its servi#es to the pu)li#. The non:filin" of the #se for e>proprition will not ne#essril! led tothe return of the propert! to the lndowner. Aht is left to the lndowner is the ri"ht of #o(penstion.

> > > It is settled tht non:p!(ent of ust #o(penstion does not entitle the privte lndowners to re#overpossession of their e>proprited lot.+

;ust li6e in the /orfo( #se, herein respondents lso filed to uestion the t6in" of their propert! for lon" period of ti(e &fro( $3+ until the erl! $331s' nd, when s6ed durin" tril wht #tion the! too6fter their propert! ws t6en, witness ;ovito Buis, one of the respondents, testified tht Jwhen we hven o##sion to tl6 to proprition pro#eedin"s instituted to deter(ine ust#o(penstion, the tril #ourt is still (ndted to #t in ##ordn#e with the pro#edure provided for in
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt10


4/6

Se#tion 5, Rule 0 of the $330 Rules of Civil Pro#edure, reuirin" the ppoint(ent of not (ore thn three#o(petent nd disinterested #o((issioners to s#ertin nd report to the #ourt the ust #o(penstion forthe su)e#t propert!. The Court reiterted its rulin" in Ntionl Power Corportion v. Del Cru8$$tht Jtrilwith the id of #o((issioners is su)stntil ri"ht tht (! not )e done w! with #pri#iousl! or for noreson t ll.J$It ws lso e(phsi8ed therein tht lthou"h s#ertin(ent of ust #o(penstion is

udi#il prero"tive, the #o((issioners1 findin"s (! onl! )e disre"rded or su)stituted with the tril#ourt1s own esti(tion of the propert!1s vlue onl! if the #o((issioners hve pplied ille"l prin#iples tothe eviden#e su)(itted to the(, where the! hve disre"rded #ler prepondern#e of eviden#e, orwhere the (ount llowed is either "rossl! indeute or e>#essive. Thus, the Court #on#luded in /orfo(tht2

The ud"e should not hve (de deter(intion of ust #o(penstion without first hvin" ppointed thereuired #o((issioners who would initill! s#ertin nd report the ust #o(penstion for the propert!involved. This )ein" the #se, we find the vlution (de )! the tril #ourt to )e ineffe#tul, not hvin")een (de in ##ordn#e with the pro#edure provided for )! the rules.$-

=eril!, the deter(intion of ust #o(penstion for propert! t6en for pu)li# use (ust )e done not onl! forthe prote#tion of the lndowners1 interest )ut lso for the "ood of the pu)li#. In Repu)li# v. Court of

%ppels,$4the Court e>plined s follows2

The #on#ept of ust #o(penstion, however, does not i(pl! firness to the propert! owner lone.Co(penstion (ust )e ust not onl! to the propert! owner, )ut lso to the pu)li# whi#h ulti(tel! )ersthe #ost of e>proprition.$5

It is uite #ler tht the Court, in for(ultin" nd pro(ul"tin" the pro#edure provided for in Se#tions 5nd , Rule 0, found this to )e the firest w! of rrivin" t the ust #o(penstion to )e pid for privtepropert! t6en for pu)li# use.

Aith re"rd to the ti(e s to when ust #o(penstion should )e fi>ed, it is settled urispruden#e thtwhere propert! ws t6en without the )enefit of e>proprition pro#eedin"s, nd its owner files n #tionfor re#over! of possession thereof )efore the #o((en#e(ent of e>proprition pro#eedin"s, it is the vlueof the propert! t the ti(e of t6in" tht is #ontrollin".$E>plinin" the reson for this rule in proprition pro#eedin"s nd withoutp!(ent of ust #o(penstion, the Cit! of Psi" #lerl! #ted in utter disre"rd of respondents1proprietr! ri"hts. Su#h #ondu#t #nnot )e #ountenn#ed )! the Court. /or sid ille"l t6in", the Cit! ofPsi" should definitel! )e held li)le for d("es to respondents. %"in, in


5/6

%uthorit! v. Rodri"ue8,the Court held tht the "overn(ent "en#!1s ille"l o##uption of the owner1spropert! for ver! lon" period of ti(e surel! resulted in pe#unir! loss to the owner. The Court held sfollows2

Su#h pe#unir! loss entitles hi( to deute #o(penstion in the for( of #tul or #o(penstor!d("es, whi#h in this #se should )e the le"l interest &@' on the vlue of the lnd t the ti(e of

t6in", fro( sid point up to full p!(ent )! the tended )! the #ourts )elow.In Republic v. Lara,et al.,the Court ruled tht the inde(nit! for rentls is in#onsistent with propert!owner1s ri"ht to )e pid le"l interest on the vlue of the propert!, for if the #onde(nor is to p! the#o(penstion due to the owners fro( the ti(e of the #tul t6in" of their propert!, the p!(ent of su#h#o(penstion is dee(ed to retro#t to the #tul t6in" of the propert! nd, hen#e, there is no )sis for

#li(in" rentls fro( the ti(e of #tul t6in".http2??$0...$20+?sour#e?.8ip@-e$0e,df?/E7?$$+-.ht( : QftnQftnpli#itl!, the Court held in Republic v. Garcellanotht2

The unifor( rule of this Court, however, is tht this #o(penstion (ust )e, not in the for( of rentls, )ut

)! w! of interest fro( the dte tht the #o(pn! Lor entit!M e>er#isin" the ri"ht of e(inent do(in t6epossession of the #onde(ned lnds, nd the (ounts "rnted )! the #ourt shll #ese to ern interestonl! fro( the (o(ent the! re pid to the owners or deposited in #ourt > > >.

> > > >

/or (ore thn twent! &' !ers, the propritionpro#eedin"s nd without the ertin" efforts to s#ertin ownership of the lot nd ne"otitin" withn! of the owners of the propert!. To our (ind, these re wnton nd irresponsi)le #ts whi#h should )esuppressed nd #orre#ted. 9en#e, the wrd of e>e(plr! d("es nd ttorne!s fees is in order.9owever, while Rodri"ue8 is entitled to su#h e>e(plr! d("es nd ttorne!1s fees, the wrd "rnted)! the #ourts )elow should )e euit)l! redu#ed. Ae hold tht Rodri"ue8 is entitled onl! to P ,.s e>e(plr! d("es, nd ttorne!1s fees euivlent to one per#ent &$@' of the (ount due.$

Bstl!, with re"rd to the li)ilit! of petitioners =i#ente P. Euse)io, Born %. 7ernrdo, nd =i#tor Endri" ll offi#ils of the #it! "overn(ent the Court #nnot uphold the rulin" tht sid petitioners re ointl!li)le in their personl #p#it! with the Cit! of Psi" for p!(ents to )e (de to respondents. There is derth of eviden#e whi#h would show tht sid petitioners were lred! #it! "overn(ent offi#ils in $3+or tht the! hd n! involve(ent whtsoever in the ille"l t6in" of respondents1 propert!. Thus, n!li)ilit! to respondents is the sole responsi)ilit! of the Cit! of Psi".

IN VIE O( THE (OREGOING, the petition is P%RTI%BBG GR!NTE". The De#ision of the Court of%ppels dted Nove()er +, - is &@' per#ent per nnu( fro( the ti(e of t6in" until full p!(ent is(de.

. The Cit! of Psi" is ORDERED to p! respondents the (ounts of P,. se>e(plr! d("es ndP,. s ttorne!1s fees.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt20http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2006.zip%3E17e,df%7C2006/FEB2006/161836.htm#_ftn%23_ftnhttp://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2006.zip%3E17e,df%7C2006/FEB2006/161836.htm#_ftn%23_ftnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt20http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2006.zip%3E17e,df%7C2006/FEB2006/161836.htm#_ftn%23_ftnhttp://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2006.zip%3E17e,df%7C2006/FEB2006/161836.htm#_ftn%23_ftnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_162474_2009.html#fnt21


6/6

No #osts.

SO OR"ERE".

eusebio vs santos.doc

Documents