Eminent Domain cases.doc

8/15/2019 Eminent Domain cases.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eminent-domain-casesdoc 1/23

G.R. No. L-12792 February 28, 1961

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE , plaintif-appellant,vs.L! OR"EN "E PP. BENE"ICTINO "E FILIPIN! , de endant-appellee.

Ofce o the Solicitor General or plainti -appellant.Ledesma, Puno, Guytingco, Antonio and Associates or de endant-appellee.

"I#ON, J .$

To ease and solve the daily tra c congestion on Legarda Street, the Government drewplans to extend A carraga street rom its !"nction with #endiola street, "p to the Sta.#esa $otonda, Sampaloc, #anila. To carry o"t this plan it ofered to %"y a portion oapproximately &,''' s("are meters o a %igger parcel %elonging to La )rden de **.+enedictinos de ilipinas, a domestic religio"s corporation that owns the San +edaollege, a private ed"cational instit"tion sit"ated on #endiola street. ot having %eena%le to reach an agreement on the matter with the owner, the Government instit"ted thepresent expropriation proceedings.

)n #ay /0, 1230 the trial co"rt, "pon application o the Government 4 hereina terre erred to as appellant 4 iss"ed an order 5xing the provisional val"e o the property in("estion at */0','''.'' and a"thori ing appellant to ta6e immediate possession thereo"pon depositing said amo"nt. The deposit having %een made with the ity Treas"rer o#anila, the trial co"rt iss"ed the corresponding order directing the Sherif o #anila toplace appellant in possession o the property a oresaid.

)n 7"ne 8, 1230, as directed %y the $"les o o"rt, the herein appellee, in lie" o ananswer, 5led a motion to dismiss the complaint %ased on the ollowing gro"nds9

:. That the property so"ght to %e expropriated is already dedicated to p"%lic "seand there ore is not s"%!ect to expropriation.

::. That there is no necessity or the proposed expropriation.

:::. That the proposed A carraga ;xtension co"ld pass thro"gh a diferent sitewhich wo"ld entail less expense to the Government and which wo"ld notnecessitate the expropriation o a property dedicated to ed"cation.

:<. That the present action 5led %y the plaintif against the de endant isdiscriminatory.

<. That the herein plaintif does not co"nt with s" cient "nds to p"sh thro"gh itspro!ect o constr"cting the proposed A carraga ;xtension and to allow the plaintifto expropriate de endant=s property at this time wo"ld %e only to needlesslydeprive the latter o the "se o its property.>.

The government 5led a written opposition to the motion to dismiss ?$ecord on Appeal,pp. @'-@0 while appellee 5led a reply thereto ?:d., pp. @8-B8 . )n 7"ly /2, 1230, witho"treceiving evidence "pon the ("estions o act arising rom the complaint, the motion to



dismiss and the opposition thereto 5led, the trial co"rt iss"ed the appealed orderdismissing the case.

The appealed order shows that the trial co"rt limited itsel to deciding the point owhether or not the expropriation o the property in ("estion is necessary ?$ec. on Ap., p.3' and, having arrived at the concl"sion that s"ch expropriation was not o extremenecessity, dismissed the proceedings.

:t is to %e o%served that paragraph :< o the complaint expressly alleges that appellantneeds, among other properties, the portion o appellee=s property in ("estion or thep"rpose o constr"cting the A carraga street extension, and that paragraph <:: o thesame complaint expressly alleges that, in accordance with Section &B?% o the $evisedAdministrative ode, the *resident o the *hilippines had a"thori ed the ac("isition, thr"condemnation proceedings, o the a oresaid parcel o land %elonging to appellee, asevidenced %y the third indorsement dated #ay 13, 1230 o the ;xec"tive Secretary,) ce o the *resident o the *hilippines, a copy o which was attached to the complaintas Annex > > and made an integral part thereo . :n denial o these allegations appellee=smotion to dismiss alleged that >there is no necessity or the proposed expropriation>.

Th"s, the ("estion o act decisive o the whole case arose.

:t is the r"le in this !"risdiction that private property may %e expropriated or p"%lic "seand "pon payment o !"st compensationC that condemnation o private property is

!"sti5ed only i it is or the p"%lic good and there is a gen"ine necessity there or o ap"%lic character. onse("ently, the co"rts have the power to in("ire into the legality othe exercise o the right o eminent domain and to determine whether or not there is agen"ine necessity there or ? ity o #anila vs. hinese omm"nity, B' *hil. @B2C #anila$ailroad ompany vs. Dacienda +enito, :nc., @0 ).G. 1230 .

Epon the other hand, it does not need extended arg"ment to show that whether or notthe proposed opening o the A carraga extension is a necessity in order to relieve thedaily congestion o tra c on Legarda St., is a ("estion o act dependent not only "ponthe acts o which the trial co"rt very li%erally too6 !"dicial notice %"t also "p on otheractors that do not appear o record and m"st, there ore, %e esta%lished %y means oevidence. Fe are, there ore, o the opinion that the parties sho"ld have %een given anopport"nity to present their respective evidence "pon these actors and others thatmight %e o direct or indirect help in determining the vital ("estion o act involved,namely, the need to open the extension o A carraga street to ease and solve the tra ccongestion on Legarda street.

FD;$; )$;, the appealed order o dismissal is set aside and the present case isremanded to the trial co"rt or "rther proceedings in accordance with this decision.Fitho"t costs.

Beng on, Actg. !."., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, La#rador, $eyes, ".B.L., Barrera and Paredes ""., conc"r.!oncepcion, "., too6 no part.

[G.R. No. 155065. July 28, 2005]





T/$ o &%%&o($#% %u: &++$' o( A #&l 15, 1 +/$&# #$ o#+ [17] +o +/$ +#&*l ou#+ o(+*&(&(), * o() o+/$#+/&()%, +/$&# #$ o $('$' * #*&%*l o +/$ *# $l o l*(' o?o ($' :y '$ $('*(+% "&l*o *(' /$# %&:l&()% *+P516.66 $# %Du*#$ $+$#.

To +/$ Co &%%&o($#%= R$ o#+, +/$ NPC &l$' &+% Co $(+FO o%&+&o([1B] *%%*&l&() +/$ o##$ +($%% o +/$* #*&%*l o# *&l&() +o +* $ &(+o * ou(+ R$ u:l& A + ;R.A.< No. 67 5 ;AN ACT RE ISING THE CHARTERO THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION<, *% * $('$', % $ & & *lly S$ +&o( 7A [15] +/$#$o /& /

#o>&'$% +/*+ +/$ @u%+ o $(%*+&o( o# #&)/+?o ? *y $*%$ $(+ ; o# /& / +/*+ o#+&o( o +/$ "&l*o #o $#+y &% :$&() $9 #o #&*+$'< %/*ll :$ $Du&>*l$(+ +o +$( $# $(+ ;10 < o +/$ *# $+ >*lu$ o +/$ #o $#+y. T/$ +#*>$#%$'l*(', NPC *%%$#+$', oul' %+&ll :$ u%$' o# *)#& ul+u#*l u# o%$% :y +/$ '$ $('*(+%, %u:@$ + o(ly +o &+% $*%$ $(I+ *''$' +/*+ +/$ lo+% $#$ o (o u%$ +o &+% o $#*+&o(% $9 $ + o# &+% +#*(% &%%&o( l&($%.[16] /*(#o:l$%>&#+u*ll* l&:#*#y

-y "$ &%&o( o No>$ :$# 10, 1 , +/$ +#&*l ou#+ #$('$#$' * '$ &%&o( o( +/$ o l*&(+, *'o +&() +/$o &%%&o($#%= #$ o $('$' * #*&%*l o +/$ l*(' o?o ($' :y "&l*o *(' /$# %&:l&()%. T/$ '&% o%&+&>$ o#+&o(o +/$ '$ &%&o( #$*'%4

WHERE ORE, @u') $(+ &% /$#$:y #$('$#$' o('$ (&() +/$ property of Petrona Dilao et al. /& / /*% :$$(* $ +$' :y 7,281 square meters &( *>o# o l*&(+& '$ l*#&() &( *>o# o '$ $('*(+% o# l*&(+& +o *y +/$

*&# *# $+ >*lu$ o %*&' *#$* * $ +$' *+ P516.66 $# %Du*#$ o# * +o+*l o P7, 61,801.B0 lu% P250,000.00 o#+/$ >*lu$ o +/$ & #o>$ $(+% * $ +$' :y /$#$&( $9 #o #&*+&o(.

SO OR"ERE". [1 ] ;E /*%&% *(' u('$#% o#&() %u l&$'<.

Co y o +/$ '$ &%&o( *% #$ $&>$' :y NPC o( No>$ :$# 18, 1 . [18] /*(#o:l$%>&#+u*ll* l&:#*#y

NPC &l$' * No+& $ o A $*l [1 ] :u+ +/$ +#&*l ou#+, :y O#'$# o J*(u*#y 1 , 2000, '$(&$' +/$ %* $ o# NPC=%*&lu#$ +o &l$ *(' $# $ + &+ &+/&( +/$ #$)l$ $(+*#y $#&o', &+ /*>&() *&l$' +o &l$ * #$ o#' o( * $*l. [20] To +/$O#'$#, NPC &l$' * o+&o( o# #$ o(%&'$#*+&o(,[21] o(+$('&() +/*+ * #$ o#' o( * $*l *% (o+ #$Du&#$' *% +/$+#&*l ou#+ #$('$#$' @u') $(+ *)*&(%+ *ll +/$ '$ $('*(+% &( lu'&() E(#&Du$ *% %/o (, %o &+ l*& $', :y +/$

'&% o%&+&>$ o#+&o( o +/$ '$ &%&o( #$ $##&() +o =P$+#o(* "&l*o $+ *l.

-y R$%olu+&o([22] o *# / , 2000, +/$ +#&*l ou#+ '$(&$' NPC=% o+&o( o# #$ o(%&'$#*+&o(, l*#& y&() +/*+ +/$#$ $#$( $ +o =P$+#o(* "&l*o $+ *l. &( +/$ '&% o%&+&>$ o#+&o( o &+% '$ &%&o( *% $*(+ +o o>$# o(ly "&l*o o?o ($#?%&:l&()%.[27] /*(#o:l$%>&#+u*ll* l&:#*#y

NPC %u:%$Du$(+ly &l$' :$ o#$ +/$ +#&*l ou#+ * $+&+&o( o# #$l&$ #o +/$ '$(&*l o &+% * $*l o( +/$ )#ou(' +/*&+% *&lu#$ +o &l$ * #$ o#' o( * $*l *% 'u$ +o /o($%+ &%+* $ *(' $9 u%*:l$ ($)l$ +, &+ /*>&() :$l&$>$' +/*+ *#$ o#' o( * $*l *% (o+ #$Du&#$' &( l&)/+ o +/$ *&lu#$ o +/$ o+/$# '$ $('*(+, E(#&Du$ , +o &l$ *( *(% $# +o +/$o l*&(+. [2B] /*(#o:l$%>&#+u*ll* l&:#*#y

T/$ +#&*l ou#+ '$(&$' NPC=% $+&+&o( o# #$l&$ o# l* o * +u*l *(' l$)*l :*%&%.[25] /*(#o:l$%>&#+u*ll* l&:#*#

O( Au)u%+ 1 , 2001, +/$ +#&*l ou#+ )#*(+$' "&l*o $+ *l.=% o+&o( o# $9$ u+&o( o @u') $(+.[26] NPC +/$#$u o(&l$' * $+&+&o( o#certiorari &+/ +/$ Cou#+ o A $*l% &+/ #*y$# o# +$ o#*#y #$%+#*&(&() o#'$# *(' * #&+ o

#$l& &(*#y &(@u( +&o([2 ] *%%*&l&() +/$ +#&*l ou#+=% o#'$# '$(y&() &+% * $*l *(' o+/$# o#'$#% #$l*+$' +/$#$$ll *% +/$ o#'$# )#*(+&() "&l*o $+ *l.=% o+&o( o# $9$ u+&o(. T/$ * $ll*+$ ou#+, /o $>$#, '$(&$' NPC=%

$+&+&o(,[28] &+ /ol'&() +/*+ u('$# Rul$ B1, S$ +&o( 2 o +/$ 1 Rul$% o C&>&l P#o $'u#$, +/$ &l&() o * #$ o#'o( * $*l &% #$Du&#$' &( % $ &*l #o $$'&()% *(' o+/$# *%$% o ul+& l$ o# %$ *#*+$ * $*l%, *% &( *( * +&o( o#$9 #o #&*+&o( &( /& / +/$ o#'$# '$+$# &(&() +/$ #&)/+ o +/$ l*&(+& +o $9 #o #&*+$ *(' +/$ %u:%$Du$(+*'@u'& *+&o( o( +/$ &%%u$ o @u%+ o $(%*+&o( *y :$ +/$ %u:@$ + o %$ *#*+$ * $*l%.[2 ] /*(#o:l$%>&#+u*ll* l&:#*#y

http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/jul2005/155065.php#_ftn13








































T/u%, &( Municipality of Bian , +/&% Cou#+ /$l' +/*+ &( * +&o(% o# $ &($(+ 'o *&(, %&( $ (o l$%% +/*( + o * $*l%*#$ *llo $' :y l* , +/$ $#&o' o# * $*l #o *( o#'$# o o('$ (*+&o( &% +/&#+y '*y% ou(+$' #o (o+& $+/$#$o *(' (o+ +/$ o#'&(*#y $#&o' o & +$$( '*y% #$% #&:$' o# * +&o(% &( )$($#*l. [77] A% %u /, +/$ o l*&(+*ll% u('$# +/$ l*%%& & *+&o( o =o+/$# *%$% o ul+& l$ o# %$ *#*+$ * $*l /$#$ +/$ l* o# +/$%$ #ul$% %o #$D&( *:o>$?Duo+$' S$ +&o( 2;*< o Rul$ B1 o +/$ Rul$% o C&>&l P#o $'u#$ &( /& / * #$ o#' o( * $*l &% #$Du&#$'+o :$ &l$' *(' %$#>$'.

R$% $ +&() NPC=% l*& +/*+ +/$ +#&*l ou#+ '&' (o+ * Du&#$ @u#&%'& +&o( o>$# +/$ o+/$# '$ $('*(+, E(#&Du$ :$&() (o $>&'$( $ +/*+ %u o(% *% %$#>$' o( /$# *(', +/$#$ o#$, (o * $*l &+/ #$% $ + +o +/$ *%$ *)*&(%+ /$# *#o%$, +/$ +#&*l ou#+=% O#'$# [7B] o *y , 1 6 :$l&$% %*&' l*& 4

9 9 9

In the letter-appeal by defendant Estefania V. Enrique addressed to the !ourt, defendant did manifestno opposition to the ri"ht of plaintiff to the use of her land :u+ o(ly & / ;%& < +/*+ *y $(+ :$ :*%$' o( +/$* +u*l *# $+ >*lu$ o +/$ #o $#+y %ou)/+ +o :$ $9 #o #&*+$'. I( o $(+ +o %*&' l$++$#?* $*l, l*&(+& %+#$%%$'+/*+ +/$ * ou(+ '$ o%&+$' *% u#$ly +o %$ u#$ * #&+ o o%%$%%&o( *% #o>&'$' u('$# P" B2. I+ *)#$$' &+/'$ $('*(+ +/*+ +/$ *&# *# $+ >*lu$ o# * +u*l *# $+ >*lu$ %/*ll :$ +/$ :*%&% o# +/$ @u%+ o $(%*+&o( o +/$

#o $#+y.

9 9 9 ;E /*%&% *(' u('$#% o#&() %u l&$'<

T/*+ +/$ '$ $('*(+ E(#&Du$ '&' (o+ &l$ *( *(% $# +o +/$ o l*&(+ '&' (o+ o#$ lo%$ +/$ o%%&:&l&+y o *(* $*l *#&%&() +/$#$ #o . o# S$ +&o( 7 o Rul$ 6 #o>&'$%4

S$ . 7. !efenses and o"#ections . = I * '$ $('*(+ /*% (o o:@$ +&o( o# '$ $(%$ +o +/$ * +&o( o# +/$ +* &() o /&% #o $#+y, /$ *y &l$ *(' %$#>$ * (o+& $ o * $*#*( $ *(' * *(& $%+*+&o( +o +/*+ $ $ +, % $ & & *lly '$%&)(*+&()o# &'$(+& y&() +/$ #o $#+y &( /& / /$ l*& % +o :$ &(+$#$%+$', &+/&( +/$ +& $ %+*+$' &( +/$ %u o(%.T/$#$* +$#, /$ %/*ll :$ $(+&+l$' +o (o+& $ o *ll #o $$'&()% * $ +&() +/$ %* $.

I * '$ $('*(+ /*% *(y o:@$ +&o( +o +/$ &l&() o o# +/$ *ll$)*+&o(% &( +/$ o l*&(+, o# *(y o:@$ +&o( o# '$ $(%$+o +/$ +* &() o /&% #o $#+y, /$ %/*ll %$#>$ /&% *(% $# &+/&( +/$ +& $ %+*+$' &( +/$ %u o(%. T/$ *(% $# %/*ll% $ & & *lly '$%&)(*+$ o# &'$(+& y +/$ #o $#+y &( /& / /$ l*& % +o /*>$ *( &(+$#$%+, %+*+$ +/$ (*+u#$ *(' $9+o +/$ &(+$#$%+ l*& $', *(' *''u $ *ll /&% o:@$ +&o(% *(' '$ $(%$% +o +/$ +* &() o /&% #o $#+y. Noou(+$# l*& , #o%%? l*& o# +/&#'? *#+y o l*&(+ %/*ll :$ *ll$)$' o# *llo $' &( +/$ *(% $# o# *(y %u:%$Du$(+

l$*'&().

A '$ $('*(+ *&>$% *ll '$ $(%$% *(' o:@$ +&o(% (o+ %o *ll$)$' :u+ +/$ ou#+, &( +/$ &(+$#$%+ o @u%+& $, *y $#* $(' $(+% +o +/$ *(% $# +o :$ *'$ (o+ l*+$# +/*( +$( ;10< '*y% #o +/$ &l&() +/$#$o . Ho $>$#, *+ +/$ +#&*lo +/$ &%%u$ o @u%+ o $(%*+&o(,#hether or not a defendant has pre$iously appeared or ans#ered , /$ *y

#$%$(+ $>&'$( $ *% +o +/$ * ou(+ o +/$ o $(%*+&o( +o :$ *&' o# /&% #o $#+y, *(' /$ *y %/*#$ &( +/$

'&%+#&:u+&o( o +/$ * *#'. ;E /*%&% *(' u('$#% o#&() %u l&$'<.

I( o+/$# o#'%, o( $ +/$ o $(%*+&o( o# E(#&Du$ #o $#+y &% l* $' &( &%%u$ *+ +/$ +#&*l, %/$ oul', ollo &()+/$ +/&#' *#*)#* / o +/$ & $'&*+$ly?Duo+$' S$ +&o( 7 o Rul$ 6 , *#+& & *+$ +/$#$&( *(' & %/$ &% (o+ &(o( o# &+y &+/ +/$ +#&*l ou#+=% '$+$# &(*+&o( o +/$ o $(%*+&o(, %/$ *( * $*l +/$#$ #o .

ul+& l$ o# %$ *#*+$ * $*l% :$&() $9&%+$(+ &( +/$ #$%$(+ $9 #o #&*+&o( *%$, NPC %/oul' /*>$ &l$' * #$ o#' o* $*l &+/&( 70 '*y% #o #$ $& + o +/$ +#&*l ou#+=% '$ &%&o(. T/$ +#&*l ou#+=% '&% &%%*l o &+% * $*l, /*% * &# $' :y +/$ * $ll*+$ ou#+, *% +/u% &( o#'$#.







En passant , )lo%%&() o>$# NPC=% *&lu#$ +o &l$ #$ o#' o( * $*l, &+% * $*l oul' %+&ll (o+ #o% $# o(%u:%+*(+&>$ )#ou('%.

NPC *( /o#$' &+% * $*l [75] o( +/$ *ll$)$' o>$#>*lu$' * #*&%*l :y +/$ o &%%&o($#% o +/$ o $(%*+&o( +o :$ * *#'$' +o "&l*o $+ *l., +/$ o &%%&o($#% /*>&() *ll$)$'ly lo%+ %&)/+ o +/$ *l#$*'y $(+&o($' 10 l& &+ #o>&'$' u('$# S$ +&o( 7A o R.A. No. 67 5.

I( $ational %o&er orporation v. (iong ,[76] $+&+&o($# %& &l*#ly *#)u$' +/$#$&( +/*+ +/$ Cou#+ o A $*l%)#*>$ly $##$' &( u /ol'&() +/$ RTC o#'$# #$Du&#&() &+ +o *y +/$ full mar%et $alue o +/$ $9 #o #&*+$'

#o $#+&$%, '$% &+$ +/$ * + +/*+ &+ *% o(ly * Du&#&() *( $*%$ $(+ o #&)/+?o ? *y o# &+% +#*(% &%%&o( l& o&(+$' ou+, *% &+ 'o$% &( +/$ #$%$(+ *%$, +/*+ u('$# S$ +&o( 7A o RA No. 67 5, *% * $('$', /$#$ o(ly *($*%$ $(+ o #&)/+?o ? *y %/*ll :$ * Du&#$', &+/ +/$ #&( & *l u# o%$ o# /& / +/$ l*(' &% * +u*lly '$>o+$' &%u(& *&#$', +/$ o $(%*+&o( should not e&'eed ten per'ent (1)*+ of the mar%et $alue of the property .! /ol'&() +/$ +#&*l ou#+ *(' +/$ Cou#+ o A $*l%=% * #o>*l o +/$ o &%%&o($#%= #$ o $('*+&o( &( +/*+ *%$, +/&% Cou#+ '$ l*#$'4

In fi&in" the $aluation at P )).)) per square meter, the !ourt of ppeals noted that the trial 'ourt had'onsidered the reports of the 'ommissioners and the proofs submitted by the parties. his in'ludes thefair mar%et $alue of P1,1)).)) per square meter proffered by the respondents. his $aluation by o#ners

of the property may not be bindin" upon the petitioner or the 'ourt, althou"h it should at least set a'eilin" pri'e for the 'ompensation to be a#arded. he trial 'ourt found that the par'els of land sou"ht tobe e&propriated are a"ri'ultural land, #ith minimal impro$ements. It is the nature and 'hara'ter of theland at the time of its ta%in" that is the prin'ipal 'riterion to determine /ust 'ompensation to thelando#ner. 0en'e, the trial 'ourt a''epted not the o#ner s $aluation of P1,1)) per square meter but onlyP )) as re'ommended in the ma/ority report of the 'ommissioners .

9 9 9

I( &('&() +/*+ +/$ +#&*l ou#+ '&' (o+ *:u%$ &+% *u+/o#&+y &( $>*lu*+&() +/$ $>&'$( $ *(' +/$ #$ o#+% l* $' :$ o&+ (o# '&' &+ &%* ly +/$ #ul$% )o>$#(&() *&# >*lu*+&o(, +/$ Cou#+ o A $*l% ou(' +/$ *@o#&+y #$ o#+=%

>*lu*+&o( o P500 $# %Du*#$ $+$# +o :$ *&#.aid fa'tual findin" of the !ourt of ppeals, absent anysho#in" that the $aluation is e&orbitant or other#ise un/ustified, is bindin" on the parties as #ell as this!ourt . ;E /*%&% *(' u('$#% o#&() %u l&$'<.

I('$$', $9 #o #&*+&o( &% (o+ l& &+$' +o +/$ * Du&%&+&o( o #$*l #o $#+y &+/ * o##$% o('&() +#*(% $# o +&+l o%%$%%&o(. T/$ #&)/+?o ? *y $*%$ $(+ #$%ul+&() &( * #$%+#& +&o( o# l& &+*+&o( o( #o $#+y #&)/+% o>$# +#*>$#%$' :y +#*(% &%%&o( l&($%, *% &( +/$ #$%$(+ *%$, *l%o *ll% &+/&( +/$ * :&+ o +/$ +$# =$9 #o #&*+$9 l*&($' &( $ational %o&er orporation v. Gutierrez, [7 ] viz

T/$ +#&*l ou#+=% o:%$#>*+&o( %/*#$' :y +/$ * $ll*+$ ou#+ %/o +/*+ =9 9 9 W/&l$ &+ &% +#u$ +/*+ l*&(+& * +$# * #&)/+?o ? *y $*%$ $(+, it ne$ertheless perpetually depri$es defendants of their proprietary ri"hts as

manifested by the imposition by the plaintiff upon defendants that belo# said transmission lines no planthi"her than three (3+ meters is allo#ed. 4urthermore, be'ause of the hi"h-tension 'urrent 'on$eyedthrou"h said transmission lines, dan"er to life and limbs that may be 'aused beneath said #ires 'annotalto"ether be dis'ounted, and to 'ap it all, plaintiff only pays the fee to defendants on'e, #hile the lattershall 'ontinually pay the ta&es due on said affe'ted portion of their property.

he fore"oin" fa'ts 'onsidered, the a'quisition of the ri"ht-of-#ay easement falls #ithin the pur$ie# ofthe po#er of eminent domain . Su / o( lu%&o( &('% %u o#+ &( %& &l*# *%$% o $*%$ $(+ o #&)/+?o ? *y/$#$ +/$ Su #$ $ Cou#+ %u%+*&($' +/$ * *#' o @u%+ o $(%*+&o( o# #&>*+$ #o $#+y o('$ ($' o# u:l&u%$ ;S$$ N*+&o(*l Po $# Co# o#*+&o( >%. Cou#+ o A $*l%, 12 SCRA 665, 1 8B G*# &* >%. Cou#+ o A $*l%,102 SCRA 5 , 1 81<. T/$ Su #$ $ Cou#+, &( R$ u:l& o +/$ P/&l& &($% >%. PL"T, +/u% /$l' +/*+4


http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2003/jun2003/152436.php





http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2003/jun2003/152436.php





No# *lly, o ou#%$, the po#er of eminent domain results in the ta%in" or appropriation of title to, andpossession of, the e&propriated property5 but no 'o"ent reason appears #hy said po#er may not bea$ailed of to impose only a burden upon the o#ner of 'ondemned property, #ithout loss of title andpossession . I+ &% u(Du$%+&o(*:l$ +/*+ #$*l #o $#+y *y, +/#ou)/ $9 #o #&*+&o(, :$ %u:@$ +$' +o *( $*%$ $(+ o#&)/+?o ? *y.

I( +/$ *%$ *+ :*#, +/$ $*%$ $(+ o #&)/+?o ? *y &% '$ &(&+$ly * +* &() u('$# +/$ o $# o $ &($(+ 'o *&(.Co(%&'$#&() +/$ (*+u#$ *(' $ $ + o +/$ &(%+*ll*+&o( o +/$ 270 K $9& o?L& *y +#*(% &%%&o( l&($%,thelimitation imposed by 6P! a"ainst the use of the land for an indefinite period depri$es pri$aterespondents of its ordinary use . ;E /*%&% *(' u('$#% o#&() %u l&$'<.

#o +/$ Co &%%&o($#%= R$ o#+[78] /#o(& l&() +/$ ollo &() &('&()%4

9 9 9

1. T/$ *# $l o l*(' o ($' :y +/$ '$ $('*(+ PETRONA O. "ILAO, $+ *l. &% >$#y $#+&l$, l*&(, %u&+$' o#*(y #o % #o'u +&o(, o#+&o( o /& / l*(+$' &+/ o o +#$$% *(' *()o +#$$%, o#+&o( l*(+$' &+/o#(, %o $+& $% l*(+$' &+/ %u)*# *($, +/$ %*&' l*(' /*% * '&%+*( $ o *:ou+ 1 &lo $+$# #o +/$+#*'&() $(+$#, *:ou+ 100 $+$#% #o *( &('u%+#&*l l*(' ;S/$ :$#) -&o+$ / Co# .< *'@* $(+ +o *Poul+#y *# *(' l&$% *lo() +/$ P#o>&( &*l Ro*'.

9 9 9

I PRO E ENTS A ECTE"

P$# o ul*# &(% $ +&o( *'$ o( lo+ o ( :y PETRONA O. "ILAO, $+ *l. +#*>$#%$' :y * +#*(% &%%&o( l&($ o NPC*(' &+/ y >$#& & *+&o( *% +o +/$ (u :$# o & #o>$ $(+%, +/$ ollo &() +#$$% /*' :$$( '* *)$'.

1. 55 o o +#$$% #o'u +&>$2. 10 *()o +#$$% #o'u +&>$

7. 70 * *o +#$$% #o'u +&>$B. 110 :*(*(*%

5. B00 & &l?& &l +#$$%

9 9 9 ,[7 ]

&+ *((o+ :$ )*&(%*&' +/*+ NPC=% o l*&(+ $#$ly &(>ol>$% * %& l$ *%$ o $#$ *%%*)$ o +#*(% &%%&o( l&o>$# "&l*o $+ *l.=% #o $#+y. A%&'$ #o +/$ * +u*l '* *)$ 'o($ +o +/$ #o $#+y +#*>$#%$' :y +/$ +#*(% &%%&o(l&($%, +/$ *)#& ul+u#*l *(' $ o(o & * +&>&+y (o# *lly u('$#+* $( o( +/$ $(+&#$ #o $#+y &% u(Du$%+&o(*:ly#$%+#& +$' *(' $# $+u*lly /* $#$' *% +/$ $(>&#o( $(+ &% *'$ '*()$#ou% +o +/$ o u *(+=% l& $ *(' l& :.

T/$ '$+$# &(*+&o( o @u%+ o $(%*+&o( &( $9 #o #&*+&o( #o $$'&()% :$&() * @u'& &*l u( +&o(,[B0] +/&% Cou#+&('% +/$ o &%%&o($#%= #$ o $('*+&o( o P516.66 $# %Du*#$ $+$#, /& / *% * #o>$' :y +/$ +#&*l ou#+,+o :$ @u%+ *(' #$*%o(*:l$ o $(%*+&o( o# +/$ $9 #o #&*+$' #o $#+y o "&l*o *(' /$# %&:l&()%.

I( &($, +/$ * $*l %ou)/+ :y NPC 'o$% (o+ %+*(' o( :o+/ #o $'u#*l *(' %u:%+*(+&>$ )#ou('%.

0E E49 E , +/$ $+&+&o( &% /$#$:y "ENIE".

SO OR"ERE".












P*()*(&:*(, ;C/*&# *(<, S*('o>*l?Gu+&$##$ , *(' Co#o(*, JJ., o( u#.

G*# &*, J., (o *#+.

G.R. No. 1%&12' (ay 17, 199&

PRO)INCE OF C!(!RINE UR, re*re+e e by GO). LUI R. )ILL!FUERTE aHON. BEN/!(IN ). P!NG! a+ Pre+0 0 /u e o RTC Bra 34 && a P050,Ca ar0 e+ ur, petitioners,vs.THE COURT OF !PPE!L THIR" "I)I ION , ERNE TO !N /O! UIN a EFREN!N /O! UIN, respondents.

%he Pro&incial Attorney or petitioners.

$eynaldo L. 'errera or (rnesto San "oa)uin.

UI! ON, J.:

:n this appeal %y certiorari rom the decision o the o"rt o Appeals in A -G.$. S* o./'331 entitled >;rnesto . San 7oa("in, et al., v. Don. +en!amin <. *anga, et al.,> thiso"rt is as6ed to decide whether the expropriation o agric"lt"ral lands %y localgovernment "nits is s"%!ect, to the prior approval o the Secretary o the Agrarian$e orm, as the implementator o the agrarian re orm program.

)n ecem%er //, 1288, the Sangg"niang *anlalawigan o the *rovince o amarines S"rpassed $esol"tion o. 1/2, Series o 1288, a"thori ing the *rovincial Governor top"rchase or expropriate property contig"o"s to the provincial capitol site, in order toesta%lish a pilot arm or non- ood and non-traditional agric"lt"ral crops and a ho"singpro!ect or provincial government employees.

The >FD;$;AS> cla"se o9 the $esol"tion states9

FD;$;AS, the province o amarines S"r has adopted a 5ve-yearomprehensive evelopment plan, some o the vital components o whichincl"des the esta%lishment o model and pilot arm or non- ood and non-traditional agric"lt"ral crops, soil testing and tiss"e c"lt"re la%oratorycenters, 13 small scale technology soap ma6ing, small scale prod"cts oplaster o paris, marine %iological and sea arming research center,and otherprogressive easi%ility concepts o%!ective o which is to provide thenecessary scienti5c and technology 6now-how to armers and 5shermen inamarines S"r and to esta%lish a ho"sing pro!ect or provincial governmentemployeesC

FD;$;AS, the province wo"ld need additional land to %e ac("ired either %yp"rchase or expropriation to implement the a%ove program componentC





s"spend the expropriation proceedings "ntil a ter the *rovince o amarines S"r shallhave s"%mitted the re("isite approval o the epartment o Agrarian $e orm to convertthe classi5cation o the property o the private respondents rom agric"lt"ral to non-agric"lt"ral land.

Dence this petition.

:t m"st %e noted that in the o"rt o Appeals, the San 7oa("ins as6ed or9 ?i thedismissal o the complaints or expropriation on the gro"nd o the inade("acy o thecompensation ofered or the property and ?ii the n"lli5cation o $esol"tion o. 1/2,Series o 1288 o the Sangg"niang *anlalawigan o the *rovince o amarines S"r.

The o"rt o Appeals did not r"le on the validity o the ("estioned resol"tionC neither didit dismiss the complaints. Dowever, when the o"rt o Appeals ordered the s"spension o the proceedings "ntil the *rovince o amarines S"r shall have o%tained the a"thority othe epartment o Agrarian $e orm to change the classi5cation o the lands so"ght to %eexpropriated rom agric"lt"ral to non-agric"lt"ral "se, it ass"med that the resol"tion isvalid and that the expropriation is or a p"%lic p"rpose or p"%lic "se.

#odernly, there has %een a shi t rom the literal to a %roader interpretation o >p"%licp"rpose> or >p"%lic "se> or which the power o eminent domain may %e exercised. Theold concept was that the condemned property m"st act"ally %e "sed %y the generalp"%lic ?e.g. roads, %ridges, p"%lic pla as, etc. %e ore the ta6ing thereo co"ld satis y theconstit"tional re("irement o >p"%lic "se>. Ender the new concept, >p"%lic "se> meansp"%lic advantage, convenience or %ene5t, which tends to contri%"te to the generalwel are and the prosperity o the whole comm"nity, li6e a resort complex or to"rists orho"sing pro!ect ?Deirs o 7"ancho Ardano v. $eyes, 1/3 S $A //' I128@JC S"m"long v.G"errero, 13B S .$A B&1 I1280J .

The expropriation o the property a"thori ed %y the ("estioned resol"tion is or a p"%licp"rpose. The esta%lishment o a pilot development center wo"ld in"re to the direct%ene5t and advantage o the people o the *rovince o amarines S"r. )nce operational,the center wo"ld ma6e availa%le to the comm"nity inval"a%le in ormation andtechnology on agric"lt"re, 5shery and the cottage ind"stry. Eltimately, the livelihood othe armers, 5shermen and cra tsmen wo"ld %e enhanced. The ho"sing pro!ect alsosatis5es the p"%lic p"rpose re("irement o the onstit"tion. As held in Sumulong &.Guerrero , 13B S $A B&1, >Do"sing is a %asic h"man need. Shortage in ho"sing is amatter o state concern since it directly and signi5cantly afects p"%lic health, sa ety, theenvironment and in s"m the general wel are.>

:t is the s"%mission o the *rovince o amarines S"r that its exercise o the power oeminent domain cannot %e restricted %y the provisions o the omprehensive Agrarian$e orm Law ?$.A. o. &&30 , partic"larly Section &3 thereo , which re("ires the approvalo the epartment o Agrarian $e orm %e ore a parcel o land can %e reclassi5ed rom anagric"lt"ral to a non-agric"lt"ral land.

The o"rt o Appeals, ollowing the recommendation o the Solicitor General, held thatthe *rovince o amarines S"r m"st comply with the provision o Section &3 o theomprehensive Agrarian $e orm Law and m"st 5rst sec"re the approval o theepartment o Agrarian $e orm o the plan to expropriate the lands o the San 7oa("ins.









>)rdering the plaintif to pay the de endants the !"st compensation or said propertywhich is the air mar6et val"e o the land condemned, comp"ted at the rate o six pesos?*&.'' per s("are meter, with legal rate o interest rom Septem%er 12, 12&2, "ntil "llypaidC and chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

>)rdering the plaintif to pay the costs o s"it, which incl"des the a oresaid ees ocommissioners, Atty. <ictorino *. ;vangelista and #r. *a%loomingo.> I1J chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

The %one o contention in the instant controversy is the 0&,382-s("are meter propertyprevio"sly owned %y L"is Santos, predecessor-in-interest o herein respondents, whichorms part o the expropriated area. chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

:t wo"ld appear that the national government ailed to pay to herein respondents thecompensation p"rs"ant to the oregoing decision, s"ch that a little over 5ve years later,or on '2 #ay 128B, respondents 5led a mani estation with a motion see6ing payment orthe expropriated property. )n '0 7"ne 128B, the +"lacan $T , a ter ascertaining that theheirs remained "npaid in the s"m o *1,'38,&33.'3, iss"ed a writ o exec"tion served onthe plaintif, thro"gh the ) ce o the Solicitor General, or the implementation thereo .Fhen the order was not complied with, respondents again 5led a motion "rging the trialco"rt to direct the provincial treas"rer o +"lacan to release to them the amo"nt o*0/,&[email protected], a portion o the s"m deposited %y petitioner at the inception o theexpropriation proceedings in 12&2, corresponding to their share o the deposit. The trialco"rt, in its order o 1' 7"ly 128B, granted the motion. chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

:n the meantime, *resident 7oseph ;!ercito ;strada iss"ed *roclamation o. //, I/J trans erring /' hectares o the expropriated property to the +"lacan State Eniversity orthe expansion o its acilities and another 3 hectares to %e "sed excl"sively or thepropagation o the *hilippine cara%ao. The remaining portion was retained %y the *:A.

This act notwithstanding, and despite the 128B co"rt order, the Santos heirs remained"npaid, and no action was ta6en on their case "ntil 1& Septem%er 1222 when petitioner5led its mani estation and motion to permit the deposit in co"rt o the amo"nt o*B,&&B,'''.'' %y way o !"st compensation or the expropriated property o the late L"isSantos s"%!ect to s"ch 5nal comp"tation as might %e approved %y the co"rt. This time,the Santos heirs, opposing the mani estation and motion, s"%mitted a co"nter-motion toad!"st the compensation rom *&.'' per s("are meter previo"sly 5xed in the 1202decision to its c"rrent onal val"ation pegged at *3,'''.'' per s("are meter or, in thealternative, to ca"se the ret"rn to them o the expropriated property. )n '1 #arch /''',the +"lacan $T r"led in avor o respondents and iss"ed the assailed order, vacating itsdecision o /& e%r"ary 1202 and declaring it to %e "nen orcea%le on the gro"nd oprescription - chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

>FD;$; )$;, premises considered, the co"rt here%y9 chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

>1 declares the decision rendered %y this o"rt on e%r"ary /&, 1202 no longeren orcea%le, exec"tion o the same %y either a motion or an independent action havingalready prescri%ed in accordance with Section &, $"le @2 o %oth the 12&B $evised $"leso o"rt and the 1220 $"les o ivil *roced"reC chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2002/jul2002/146587.php#_edn1






>/ denies the plaintifs #ani estation and #otion to *ermit *laintif to eposit in o"rt*ayment or ;xpropriated *roperties dated Septem%er 1&, 1222 or the reason stated inthe next preceding paragraph hereo C and chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

>@ orders the ret"rn o the expropriated property o the late de endant L"is Santos to hisheirs con orma%ly with the r"ling o the S"preme o"rt in Government o Sorsogon vs.<da. e <illaroya, 13@ S $A /21, witho"t pre!"dice to any case which the parties maydeem appropriate to instit"te in relation with the amo"nt already paid to hereinoppositors and the p"rported trans er o a portion o the said realty to the +"lacan StateEniversity p"rs"ant to *roclamation o. // iss"ed %y *resident 7oseph;!ercito.> I@Jchanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

*etitioner %ro"ght the matter "p to the o"rt o Appeals %"t the petition was o"trightlydenied. :t wo"ld appear that the denial was %ased on Section B, $"le &3, o the 1220$"les o ivil *roced"re which provided that the 5ling o a motion or reconsideration ind"e time a ter 5ling o the !"dgment, order or resol"tion interr"pted the r"nning o thesixty-day period within which to 5le a petition or certiorari C and that i a motion orreconsideration was denied, the aggrieved party co"ld 5le the petition only within theremaining period, %"t which sho"ld not %e less than 5ve days in any event, rec6onedrom the notice o s"ch denial. The reglementary period, however, was later modi5ed %yA.#. o. ''-/-'@ S. ., now reading th"sly9 chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

Sec. B. hen and here petition led. --- The petition shall %e 5led not later than sixty?&' days rom notice o the !"dgment, order or resol"tion. :n case a motion orreconsideration or new trial is timely 5led, whether s"ch motion is re("ired or not, thesixty ?&' day period shall %e co"nted rom notice o the denial o saidmotion. chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

The amendatory provision, %eing c"rative in nat"re, sho"ld %e made applica%le to allcases still pending with the co"rts at the time o its efectivity.chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

:n /ar oles &s. /L$!, IBJ the o"rt has said9 chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

The o"rt has o%served that irc"lar o. @2-28 has generated tremendo"s con "sionres"lting in the dismissal o n"mero"s cases or late 5ling. This may have %een %eca"se,historically, i.e. , even %e ore the 1220 revision to the $"les o ivil *roced"re, a partyhad a resh period rom receipt o the order denying the motion or reconsideration to 5lea petition or certiorari. Fere it not or the amendments %ro"ght a%o"t %y irc"lar o.@2-28, the cases so dismissed wo"ld have %een resolved on the merits. Dence, the o"rtdeemed it wise to revert to the old r"le allowing a party a resh &'-day period romnotice o the denial o the motion or reconsideration to 5le a petition or certiorari. x xxchanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

The latest amendments too6 efect on Septem%er 1, /''', ollowing its p"%lication in the#anila +"lletin on A"g"st B, /''' and in the *hilippine aily :n("irer on A"g"st 0, /''',two newspapers o general circ"lation. chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

:n view o its p"rpose, the $esol"tion "rther amending Section B, $"le &3, can only %edescri%ed as c"rative in nat"re, and the principles governing c"rative stat"tes areapplica%le. chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary







"rative stat"tes are enacted to c"re de ects in a prior law or to validate legalproceedings which wo"ld otherwise %e void or want o con ormity with certain legalre("irements. ?;rectors, :nc. vs. ational La%or $elations ommission, /3& S $A &/2I122&J. They are intended to s"pply de ects, a%ridge s"perN"ities and c"r% certain evils.

They are intended to ena%le persons to carry into efect that which they have designedor intended, %"t has ailed o expected legal conse("ence %y reason o some stat"torydisa%ility or irreg"larity in their own action. They ma6e valid that which, %e ore theenactment o the stat"te was invalid. Their p"rpose is to give validity to acts done thatwo"ld have %een invalid "nder existing laws, as i existing laws have %een complied with.?+atong +"hay Gold #ines, :nc. vs. ela Serna, @1/ S $A // I1222J. "rative stat"tes,there ore, %y their very essence, are retroactive. ?#"nicipality o San arciso, O"e on vs.#ende , Sr., /@2 S $A 11 I122BJ. I3J chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

At all events, petitioner has a valid point in emphasi ing the >p"%lic nat"re> o theexpropriated property. The petition %eing im%"ed with p"%lic interest, the o"rt hasresolved to give it d"e co"rse and to decide the case on itsmerits. chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

Assailing the 5nding o prescription %y the trial co"rt, petitioner here posited that amotion which respondents had 5led on 10 e%r"ary 128B, ollowed "p %y other motionss"%se("ent thereto, was made within the reglementary period that there%y interr"ptedthe 3-year prescriptive period within which to en orce the 1202 !"dgment. "rthermore,petitioner claimed, the receipt %y respondents o partial compensation in the s"m o*0/,&[email protected] on /@ 7"ly 128B constit"ted partial compliance on the part o petitioners andefectively estopped respondents rom invo6ing prescription expressed in Section &, $"le@2, o the $"les o o"rt. I&Jchanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

:n opposing the petition, respondents advanced the view that p"rs"ant to Section &, $"le@2, o the $"les o o"rt, the ail"re o petitioner to exec"te the !"dgment, dated /&e%r"ary 1202, within 5ve years a ter it had %ecome 5nal and exec"tory, rendered it"nen orcea%le %y mere motion. The motion or payment, dated '2 #ay 128B, as well asthe s"%se("ent dis%"rsement to them o the s"m o *0/,&[email protected] %y the provincialtreas"rer o +"lacan, co"ld not %e considered as having interr"pted the 5ve-year period,since a motion, to %e considered otherwise, sho"ld instead %e made %y the prevailingparty, in this case %y petitioner. $espondents maintained that the *0/,&[email protected] paid tothem %y the provincial treas"rer o +"lacan p"rs"ant to the 128B order o the trial co"rtwas part o the initial deposit made %y petitioner when it 5rst entered possession o theproperty in 12&2 and sho"ld not %e so regarded as a partial payment. $espondents"rther ("estioned the right o *:A to trans er ownership o a portion o the property tothe +"lacan State Eniversity even while the !"st compensation d"e the heirs had yet to%e 5nally settled. chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

The right o eminent domain is "s"ally "nderstood to %e an "ltimate right o thesovereign power to appropriate any property within its territorial sovereignty or a p"%licp"rpose. I0J "ndamental to the independent existence o a State, it re("ires norecognition %y the onstit"tion, whose provisions are ta6en as %eing merely con5rmatoryo its presence and as %eing reg"latory, at most, in the d"e exercise o the power. :n thehands o the legislat"re, the power is inherent, its scope matching that o taxation, eventhat o police power itsel , in many respects. :t reaches to every orm o property theState needs or p"%lic "se and, as an old case so p"ts it, all separate interests oindivid"als in property are held "nder a tacit agreement or implied reservation vesting









"pon the sovereign the right to res"me the possession o the property whenever thep"%lic interest so re("ires it. I8J chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

The "%i("ito"s character o eminent domain is mani est in the nat"re o theexpropriation proceedings. ;xpropriation proceedings are not adversarial in theconventional sense, or the condemning a"thority is not re("ired to assert any conNictinginterest in the property. Th"s, %y 5ling the action, the condemnor in efect merely servesnotice that it is ta6ing title and possession o the property, and the de endant assertstitle or interest in the property, not to prove a right to possession, %"t to prove a right tocompensation or the ta6ing. I2J chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

)%vio"sly, however, the power is not witho"t its limits9 rst , the ta6ing m"st %e orp"%lic "se, and second , that !"st compensation m"st %e given to the private owner o theproperty. I1'J These twin proscriptions have their origin in the recognition o thenecessity or achieving %alance %etween the State interests, on the one hand, andprivate rights, "pon the other hand, %y efectively restraining the ormer and afordingprotection to the latter. I11J :n determining p"%lic "se, two approaches are "tili ed - therst is p"%lic employment or the act"al "se %y the p"%lic, and the second is p"%licadvantage or %ene5t. I1/J :t is also "se "l to view the matter as %eing s"%!ect to constantgrowth, which is to say that as society advances, its demands "pon the individ"al soincreases, and each demand is a new "se to which the reso"rces o the individ"al may%e devoted. I1@Jchanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

The expropriated property has %een shown to %e or the contin"ed "tili ation %y the *:A,a signi5cant portion thereo %eing ceded or the expansion o the acilities o the +"lacanState Eniversity and or the propagation o the *hilippine cara%ao, themselves in linewith the re("irements o p"%lic p"rpose. $espondents ("estion the p"%lic nat"re o the"tili ation %y petitioner o the condemned property, pointing o"t that its present "sedifers rom the p"rpose originally contemplated in the 12&2 expropriation proceedings.

The arg"ment is o no moment. The property has ass"med a p"%lic character "pon itsexpropriation. S"rely, *etitioner, as the condemnor and as the owner o the property, iswell within its rights to alter and decide the "se o that property, the only limitation %eingthat it %e or p"%lic "se, which, decidedly, it is. chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

:n insisting on the ret"rn o the expropriated property, respondents wo"ld exhort on theprono"ncement in Pro&incial Go&ernment o Sorsogon &s. 0da. de 0illaroya I1BJ wherethe "npaid landowners were allowed the alternative remedy o recovery o the propertythere in ("estion. :t might %e %orne in mind that the case involved the m"nicipalgovernment o Sorsogon, to which the power o eminent domain is not inherent, %"tmerely delegated and o limited application. The grant o the power o eminent domainto local governments "nder $ep"%lic Act o. 01&' I13J cannot %e "nderstood as %eingthe pervasive and all-encompassing power vested in the legislative %ranch ogovernment. or local governments to %e a%le to wield the power, it m"st, %y ena%linglaw, %e delegated to it %y the national legislat"re, %"t even then, this delegated power o eminent domain is not, strictly spea6ing, a power o eminent, %"t only o in erior, domainor only as %road or con5ned as the real a"thority wo"ld want it to %e.I1&Jchanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

Th"s, in 0aldehue a &s. $epu#lic I10J where the private landowners had remained "npaidten years a ter the termination o the expropriation proceedings, this o"rt r"led-chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary























The points in disp"te are whether s"ch payment can still %e made and, i so, in whatamo"nt. Said lots have %een the s"%!ect o expropriation proceedings. +y 5nal andexec"tory !"dgment in said proceedings, they were condemned or p"%lic "se, as part oan airport, and ordered sold to the government. x x x :t ollows that %oth %y virt"e o the

!"dgment, long 5nal, in the expropriation s"it, as well as the annotations "pon their titlecerti5cates, plaintifs are not entitled to recover possession o their expropriated lots -which are still devoted to the p"%lic "se or which they were expropriated - %"t only todemand the air mar6et val"e o the same. chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

>Said relie may %e granted "nder plaintifs= prayer or9 Ps"ch other remedies, which may%e deemed !"st and e("ita%le "nder the premises=.> I18J chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

The o"rt proceeded to reiterate its prono"ncement in Al onso &s. Pasay !ity I12J wherethe recovery o possession o property ta6en or p"%lic "se prayed or %y the "npaidlandowner was denied even while no re("isite expropriation proceedings were 5rstinstit"ted. The landowner was merely given the relie o recovering compensation or hisproperty comp"ted at its mar6et val"e at the time it was ta6en and appropriated %y theState. chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

The !"dgment rendered %y the +"lacan $T in 1202 on the expropriation proceedingsprovides not only or the payment o !"st compensation to herein respondents %"tli6ewise ad!"dges the property condemned in avor o petitioner over which parties, aswell as their privies, are %o"nd. I/'J *etitioner has occ"pied, "tili ed and, or all intentsand p"rposes, exercised dominion over the property p"rs"ant to the !"dgment. Theexercise o s"ch rights vested to it as the condemnee indeed has amo"nted to at least apartial compliance or satis action o the 1202 !"dgment, there%y preempting any claim o %ar %y prescription on gro"nds o non-exec"tion. :n arg"ing or the ret"rn o theirproperty on the %asis o non-payment, respondents ignore the act that the right o theexpropriatory a"thority is ar rom that o an "npaid seller in ordinary sales, to which theremedy o rescission might perhaps apply. An in rem proceeding, condemnation acts"pon the property. I/1J A ter condemnation, the paramo"nt title is in the p"%lic "nder anew and independent titleC I//J th"s, %y giving notice to all claimants to a disp"ted title,condemnation proceedings provide a !"dicial process or sec"ring %etter title against allthe world than may %e o%tained %y vol"ntary conveyance.I/@J chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

$espondents, in arg"ing laches against petitioner did not ta6e into acco"nt that thesame arg"ment co"ld li6ewise apply against them. $espondents 5rst instit"tedproceedings or payment against petitioner on '2 #ay 128B, or 5ve years a ter the 1202

!"dgment had %ecome 5nal. The "n"s"ally long delay in %ringing the action to compelpayment against herein petitioner wo"ld militate against them. onsistently with the r"lethat one sho"ld ta6e good care o his own concern, respondents sho"ld havecommenced the proper action "pon the 5nality o the !"dgment which, indeed, res"ltedin a permanent deprivation o their ownership and possession o the property.I/BJ chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

The constit"tional limitation o !"st compensation is considered to %e the s"m e("ivalentto the mar6et val"e o the property, %roadly descri%ed to %e the price 5xed %y the sellerin open mar6et in the "s"al and ordinary co"rse o legal action and competition or theair val"e o the property as %etween one who receives, and one who desires to sell, it5xed at the time o the act"al ta6ing %y the government. I/3J Th"s, i property is ta6en



















or p"%lic "se %e ore compensation is deposited with the co"rt having !"risdiction overthe case, the 5nal compensation m"st incl"de interests on its !"st val"e to %e comp"tedrom the time the property is ta6en to the time when compensation is act"ally paid ordeposited with the co"rt. I/&J :n 5ne, %etween the ta6ing o the property and the act"alpayment, legal interests accr"e in order to place the owner in a position as good as ?%"tnot %etter than the position he was in %e ore the ta6ing occ"rred.I/0J chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

The +"lacan trial co"rt, in its 1202 decision, was correct in imposing interests on theonal val"e o the property to %e comp"ted rom the time petitioner instit"tedcondemnation proceedings and too6 the property in Septem%er 12&2. This allowance ointerest on the amo"nt o"nd to %e the val"e o the property as o the time o the ta6ingcomp"ted, %eing an efective or%earance, at 1/Q per ann"m I/8J sho"ld help eliminatethe iss"e o the constant N"ct"ation and inNation o the val"e o the c"rrency over time.I/2J Article 1/3' o the ivil ode, providing that, in case o extraordinary inNation ordeNation, the val"e o the c"rrency at the time o the esta%lishment o the o%ligationshall %e the %asis or the payment when no agreement to the contrary is stip"lated, hasstrict application only to contract"al o%ligations. I@'J :n other words, a contract"alagreement is needed or the efects o extraordinary inNation to %e ta6en into acco"nt toalter the val"e o the c"rrency. I@1Jchanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

All given, the trial co"rt o +"lacan in iss"ing its order, dated '1 #arch /''', vacating itsdecision o /& e%r"ary 1202 has acted %eyond its law "l cogni ance, the only a"thorityle t to it %eing to order its exec"tion. <erily, private respondents, altho"gh not entitled tothe ret"rn o the expropriated property, deserve to %e paid promptly on the yet "npaidaward o !"st compensation already 5xed %y 5nal !"dgment o the +"lacan $T on /&e%r"ary 1202 at *&.'' per s("are meter, with legal interest thereon at 1/Q per annumcomp"ted rom the date o >ta6ing> o the property, i.e., 12 Septem%er 12&2, "ntil thed"e amo"nt shall have %een "lly paid. chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

>HEREFORE , the petition is G$A T; . The resol"tion, dated @1 7"ly /''', o the o"rto Appeals dismissing the petition or certiorari , as well as its resol"tion o 'B 7an"ary/''1 denying the motion or reconsideration, and the decision o the $egional Trial o"rto +"lacan, dated '1 #arch /''', are S;T AS: ;. Let the case %e orthwith remanded tothe $egional Trial o"rt o +"lacan or the proper exec"tion o its decision prom"lgatedon /& e%r"ary 1202 which is here%y $;: STAT; . o costs. chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

S) )$ ;$; . chanro%lesvirt"allawli%rary

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan, Ynares-Santiago, a Austria- artine!, JJ., 3o 3ur.

G.R. No. L-;9;&9 /u e 29, 198&

N!TION!L HOU ING !UTHORIT=, petitioner,vs.HONOR!BLE P! TOR P. RE=E , 0 40+ 3a*a30 y a+ Pre+0 0 /u e o e a05 ,Cour o ! rar0a Re5a 0o +, e?e 4 Re 0o a5 "0+ r03 , Bra 34 II, Ca?0 e C0 y,UIRINO !U TRI! a LUCI!NO !U TRI!, respondents.

La aro, Aldana 1 %an La Ofce or petitioner.

















contin"ing "ntil otherwise ordered %y the o"rt.> 1% The comment was therea ters"%mitted %y private respondents O"irino A"stria and L"ciano A"stria.

*rivate respondents stress that while there may %e %asis or the allegation thatrespondent 7"dge did not ollow *residential ecree o. 0& as amended %y *residentialecree o. B&B, as "rther amended %y *residential ecree os. 02B, 1//B and 1/32,the matter is still s"%!ect to his 5nal disposition, he having %een vested with the originaland competent a"thority to exercise his !"dicial discretion in the light o theconstit"tional provisions. 11 There was a comment li6ewise s"%mitted %y co"nsel on%ehal o respondent 7"dge %"t again, there was no ("estion raised as to the validity othe a orementioned ecrees. S"ch comments were considered as answers. The case wasoriginally s"%mitted to the Second ivision, and in a resol"tion o e%r"ary /1, 1202, itre erred this case to the o"rt en #anc.

Ender the state o the pleadings as s"%mitted to this o"rt, it is evident why, as noted atthe o"tset, certiorari lies.

1. )ne o the %asic post"lates in constit"tional law is the pres"mption o validity olegislative or exec"tive acts. :n Angara &. (lectoral !ommission 12 the leading case on thes"%!ect "ntil now, 7"stice La"rel, in spea6ing o !"dicial review, made clear that it is notor the !"diciary to >pass "pon ("estions o wisdom, !"stice or expediency o legislation.>

1& Dis landmar6 opinion contin"es9 >#ore than that, co"rts accord the pres"mption oconstit"tionality to legislative enactments, not only %eca"se the legislat"re is pres"medto a%ide %y the onstit"tion %"t also %eca"se the !"diciary in the determination o act"alcases and controversies m"st reNect the wisdom and !"stice o the people as expressedthro"gh their representatives in the exec"tive and legislative departments o thegovernment. > 1; As pointed o"t in (rmita-*alate 'otel 1 *otel Operators Association,3nc. &. !ity *ayor o *anila 9 1' >*rimarily what calls or a reversal o s"ch a decision is thea%sence o any evidence to ofset the pres"mption o validity that attaches to achallenged stat"te or ordinance. As was expressed categorically %y 7"stice #alcolm9 >Thepres"mption is all in avor o validity ...> 16 As o this stage in this partic"lar case, there isa ail"re to challenge the validity o s"ch legislation. +oth p"%lic and private respondentsin their comments considered as answers raised no s"ch constit"tional ("estion. ;venor it, there ore, as o this stage o litigation, and "nder the conceded acts, there sho"ld%e a recognition that the law as it stands m"st %e applied. The ecree having spo6en soclearly and "ne("ivocally calls or o%edience. :t is repeating a common place to statethat on a matter where the applica%le law spea6s in no "ncertain lang"age, the o"rthas no choice except to yield to its command.

/. or is there any choice or petitioner ational Do"sing A"thority or precisely it wascreated or the la"da%le p"rpose o >"r%an land re orm.> 17 The 5rst whereas cla"sespea6s o the >magnit"de o the ho"sing pro%lem o the co"ntry> which >has grown intos"ch proportions that only a p"rpose "l, determined, organi ed mass ho"singdevelopment program can meet the needs o ilipino amilies> or decent ho"sing. 18 #oreover, the *residential ecree is mandated %y the onstit"tion which re("ires theState to >esta%lish, maintain, and ens"re ade("ate social services in the 5eld o ...ho"sing ...> as well as >to g"arantee the en!oyment o the people o a decent standard o living.> 19 The very 5rst section o the ecree spea6s o the ollowing9 >*"rs"ant to themandate o the ew onstit"tion, there shall %e developed a comprehensive andintegrated ho"sing program which shall em%race, among others, ho"sing developmentand resettlement, so"rces and schemes o 5nancing, and delineation o government and



private sector participation. The program shall speci y the priorities and targets inaccordance with the integrated national h"man settlements plan prepared %y the D"manSettlements ommission. > 2% :n view o the "rgency o the ho"sing pro%lem the vario"sdecrees mentioned earlier were iss"ed or the p"rpose o ass"ring that the governmentwo"ld %e in a 5nancial position to cope with s"ch %asic h"man need which in the*hilippines, "nder the wel are state concept, and according to the express lang"age othe onstit"tion, is an o%ligation cast "pon the State. The memorand"m or petitioners"%mitted %y Government orporate o"nsel, now li6ewise the *residential LegalAssistant, 7"stice #an"el #. La aro, p"rs"es the matter "rther in prose impressed withorce and clarity9 >The iss"e in this petition or certiorari and mandam"s involves theapplication o a r"le introd"ced %y *. . o. 0& and reiterated in s"%se("ent decrees thatnot only promotes social !"stice %"t also ends the %ane "l and one-sided practice a%etted%y the coll"sive ac("iescence o government o cials and employees, o "nder declaringproperties or the p"rpose o taxation %"t %allooning the price thereo when the sameproperties are to %e ac("ired %y the government or p"%lic p"rposes. *"t to the test,there ore, is the power o the government to introd"ce rationality in the laws and todisco"rage a deceit "l practice that is not only r"ino"s to the government cofers %"talso "ndermines its eforts at awa6ening a democratic responsiveness o the citi enrytoward good government and its economic and social programs. The co"rts sho"ldrecogni e that the r"le introd"ced %y *. . o. 0& and reiterated in s"%se("ent decreesdoes not "pset the esta%lished concepts o !"stice or the constit"tional provision on !"stcompensation or, precisely, the owner is allowed to ma6e his own val"ation o hisproperty.> 21

FD;$; )$;, the writ o certiorari is granted and the order o respondent 7"dge o 7"ly1@, 1208 is here%y n"lli5ed and set aside. The restraining order iss"ed %y this o"rt on

7an"ary B, 1202 is here%y made permanent. The case is remanded to the lower co"rt or"rther action con orma%ly to law and to the a%ove opinion. o costs.

!oncepcion "r., Guerrero, A#ad Santos, Plana, (scolin, $elo&a and Gutierre , "r., "".,concur.

*a4asiar, "., concurs in the result.

%eehan4ee, "., A)uino, "., 2e !astor, "., too4 no part.

*elencio-'errera and 0as)ue , ""., are on lea&e.

Documents

Eminent Domain cases.doc