ESLABAN VS.

ONORIO
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$ction of the canal +ro-ided that the
go-ern'ent will +a for the area that has %een ta.en. A right/of/wa agree'ent was
entered into % the +arties in which res+ondent was +aid the a'o$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$ction
of the right of wa. After which# res+ondent de'ands that +etitioner +a 0222# 788.99 for
ta.ing her +ro+ert %$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 +a
res+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
e"+ro+riation +roceedings '$st %e filed and &$st co'+ensation shall %e +aid to the owner
%efore the land co$ld %e ta.en for +$%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 'ar.et -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$ld %e fro' the ti'e of its
ta.ing % the NIA in 2832.
Lastl# the +etitioner cannot arg$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$e of the land ta.en. S$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$re)# +etitioner#
-s.
IN,ER!EDIA,E A00ELLA,E CO@R, and A!EREA ELEC,RONICS# 0<ILS.
COR0ORA,ION# res+ondents.
,he go-ern'ent# in the e"ercise of its +ower of e'inent do'ain# e"+ro+riated +ro+ert
owned % A'ere" Electronics# 0hils. Cor+oration. ,he a'o$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 wal.ing
distance 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:B at 07#B44#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 B# 28:1# 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.
2299:2# 2299:7# 2299:B and 2299:1 were iss$ed in fa-or of A'ere".
On A$g$st 78# 28:9# the Solicitor =eneral filed for the De+art'ent of Ed$cation and
C$lt$re (DEC) a co'+laint against A'ere" for the e"+ro+riation of said +ro+ert %efore
the 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$ente <igh School (later rena'ed Don !ariano !arcos !e'orial <igh School)C that
the fair 'ar.et -al$e of the +ro+ert had %een declared % A'ere" as 07#1B9#444# and
that the assessor had deter'ined its 'ar.et -al$e as 07#1B7#417 and assessed it for
ta"ation +$r+oses in the a'o$nt of 02#B4B#1:4. 2
In a 'otion +raing that the +laintiff %e a$thori>ed to ta.e i''ediate +ossession of the
+ro+ert# the then Acting Solicitor =eneral <$go E. =$tierre># *r.# in-o.ing 0residential
Decree No. 17# infor'ed the co$rt that said assessed -al$e of the +ro+ert for ta"ation
+$r+oses had %een de+osited with the 0hili++ine National Ban.(0NB) in Escolta# !anila
on Se+te'%er B4# 28:9.
Conse5$entl# on Octo%er 8# 28:9# the co$rt iss$ed an order directing the sheriff to +lace
the +laintiff in +ossession of the +ro+ert. ,he +laintiff too. act$al +ossession thereof on
Octo%er 2B# 28:9.
A'ere" filed a 'otion to dis'iss the co'+laint stating that while it was not contesting
the 'erits of the co'+laint# the sa'e failed to categoricall state the a'o$nt of &$st
co'+ensation for the +ro+ert. It therefore +raed that in consonance with 0.D. No. :81#
the &$st co'+ensation %e fi"ed at 07#1B7#417# the 'ar.et -al$e of the +ro+ert
deter'ined % the assessor which was lower than A'ere"Ds own declaration.
,he 'otion to dis'iss was o++osed % the +laintiff reasoning that while indeed the
'ar.et -al$e as deter'ined % the assessor was lower than that declared % A'ere"# the
+laintiff intended to +resent e-idence of a '$ch lower 'ar.et -al$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#B4B#1:4
with the 0NB witho$t +re&$dice to its entitle'ent to the a'o$nt of 02#273#9:7# the
%alance of the &$st co'+ensation of 07#1B7#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 B# 28:9# the lower co$rt iss$ed an order -esting the +laintiff with the
lawf$l light to ta.e the +ro+ert $+on +a'ent of &$st co'+ensation as +ro-ided % law.
On Dece'%er 28# 28:9# after the +arties had s$%'itted the na'es of their res+ecti-e
reco''endees to the a++raisal co''ittee# the lower co$rt a++ointed Att. Narciso 0eEa#
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 on
the ac5$isition cost of the +ro+ert incl$ding e"+enses for its i'+ro-e'ent. A'ere" was
also allowed % the co$rt# after it had filed a second 'otion therefor# to withdraw the
02#B4B#1:4 de+osit with the 0NB.
On !arch 27# 28:;# the +laintiff filed a 'otion for lea-e of co$rt to a'end its co'+laint
stating that after it had filed the sa'e# 0.D. No. 1;1 7 was a'ended % 0.D. No. :81C 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 Fshall not e"ceed the 'ar.et -al$e declared % the
owner or ad'inistrator or anone ha-ing legal interest in the +ro+ert# or s$ch 'ar.et
-al$e as deter'ined % the assessor# whiche-er is lowerFC and that the a'ended co'+laint
wo$ld state that the fair 'ar.et -al$e of the +ro+ert co$ld not %e in e"cess of
02#344#444# the a'o$nt for which defendantDs +redecessor/in/interest had offered to sell
said +ro+erties to the Di-ision of 0$%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:B when the +eso -al$e was
'$ch higher.
,he lower co$rt denied the 'otion to a'end the co'+laintC %$t after the +laintiff had
filed a 'otion for reconsideration# the lower co$rt ad'itted the a'ended co'+laint on
A+ril 7:# 28:;. In the 'eanti'e# A'ere" s$%'itted to the co$rt Fa$dited financial
state'entsD consisting of an acco$nt stating that the cost of its land and %$ildings was
07#24:#1:8.13# and another acco$nt stating that it inc$rred total e"+enses of 0294#9B8 for
their 'aintenance. B ,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$e of the
+ro+ert. On Octo%er 23# 28:;# the +laintiff filed a 'otion see.ing the dis5$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 'ar.et -al$e of the +ro+ert a'o$nts '$ch 'ore than the +laintiffs
fair 'ar.et -al$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# 28:1 and s$%'itted to Co''onwealth Ins$rance
Co'+an indicated 07#244#444 as the fair 'ar.et -al$e of the +ro+ert. 1 ,wo other
re+orts were 'ade at the %ehest of A'ere" with one# dated No-e'%er 29# 28:1# fi"ing
the fair 'ar.et -al$e at 07#B44#444 9# and the other# dated *$ne 9# 28:9# with 07#144#444
as the fair 'ar.et -al$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$%'itted their a++raisal re+ort finding that the fair 'ar.et -al$e of the +ro+ert was
07#:;B#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$ation of the Cit Assessor in
the s$' of 07#1B7#417.44# this %eing lower than that declared % the owner in the s$' of
07#1B9#444.44# altho$gh % act$al a++raisal of the $ndersigned Co''issioners the
+ro+ert co$ld co''and a fair 'ar.et -al$e of 07#:;B#144.44 as of the date of o$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!EREA# 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 &$st
co'+ensation +aa%le to defendant A!EREA# which s$' does not e"ceed# %$t is e-en
lower than# the fair 'ar.et -al$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''issionersD concl$sion that the fair 'ar.et -al$e of the +ro+ert was 07#:;B#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'+ensation
was $n&$stified in -iew of the co''issionersD finding that the fair 'ar.et -al$e of the
+ro+ert was 07#:;B#144.
On !arch 29# 28::# the lower co$rt 3 rendered a decision %ased on the following
findings:
,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+ert
was original owned % A-egon Inc. and was assessed at 02#4:8#B:4.44 % the Cit of
!anila for the ear 28:1 (E"h. A/1). A-egon Inc. offered to sell it to the Cit School
Board on *$l 72# 28:B at 07#B44#444.44 %$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/
B and C/1). ,he +ro+ert was a++raised on Fe%r$ar 29# 28:1 at 07#244#444.44 at the
Instance of Co''onwealth Ins$rance Co'+an# an affiliate of 6arner# Barnes G Co.#
Inc. (E"h. =). ,he defendant co'+an introd$ced i'+ro-e'ents on the +ro+ert in the
'iddle +art of 28:1 worth 07;4#;84.94 (E"hs. 1# 1/A to 1/*C 22# 2B# 21 to 28). After the
reno-ation# the +ro+ert was again a++raised at the instance of the defendant at
07#B44#444.44 on No-e'%er 29# 28:1 (E"h. 7). D$e to the world/wide recession# there
followed a sl$'+ in the de'and for electronic +rod$cts. On *$ne 1# 28:9# the ,raders
Co''odities Cor+oration offered to %$ 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#
OrdoEe># Ha+# Africano and Associates (E"ch. ;). ,he offer was acce+ted on *$ne 8# 28:9
(E"hs. : and 3). ,he sale was not cons$''ated# howe-er# when the go-ern'ent notified
the defendant in a conference held in !alacanang on *$ne 29# 28:9 that it wanted to %$
the +ro+ert for the $se of the !an$el de la F$ente <igh School (E"h. 8). Beca$se of the
fail$re of the +arties to agree on the +rice and other conditions of the +$rchase# the
go-ern'ent filed this action on A$g$st 7# 28:9.
It is a++arent that the co''issioners were infl$enced % the fact that the cit assessors
fi"ed the 'ar.et -al$e of the +ro+ert at 07#1B7#417.44 for the ear 28:9 +$rs$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 the
go-ern'ent -al$ation is fra$d$lent or erroneo$s. It '$st therefore %e reg$lar (R$le 2B2#
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 %$ at
07#:94#444.44 was 'ade % one of the 'ost re+$ta%le law fir's in the co$ntr. It is not
li.el 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 0eEa 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#B4B#1:4.44# with legal
interest fro' Octo%er 2B# 28:9 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 0B9.44 for their
attendance d$ring the hearings held on *an$ar 7B# Fe%r$ar 2;# !a 22# *$l 7B#
Se+te'%er 2:# Octo%er 27 and Dece'%er 24# 28:;# +l$s 0944.44 each for the +re+aration
of the re+ort# and the costs.
,he +laintiff ele-ated the case to the then Inter'ediate A++ellate Co$rt (IAC) for re-iew.
On Octo%er 78# 2831# it affir'ed the a++ealed decision with the 'odification that the
+laintiff Re+$%lic of the 0hili++ines %e e"e'+ted fro' the +a'ent of the
co''issionersD fees# the 0944.44 granted each of the' for the +re+aration of the re+ort
and the costs.
Its 'otion for the reconsideration of said decision ha-ing %een denied# +etitioner filed the
instant +etition s$%'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$re and was not for'all offered in e-idence.
B. 6hether or not res+ondent Co$rt erred in totall disregarding +etitionerDs 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 ta.e the following actions
on the re+ort s$%'itted % co''issioners: it 'a Facce+t the re+ort and render &$dg'ent
in accordance therewithC 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 +artC . . . .F In other
words# the re+ort of the co''issioners is 'erel ad-isor and reco''endator in
character 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$de of the esti'ate
arri-ed at % the co''issioners 'a not %e ad-ersel affected there%. In fact# the re+ort
of onl two co''issioners 'a s$ffice if the third co''issioner dissents fro' the
for'erDs -al$ation. 24 Indeed# the +artici+ation of an allegedl %iased co''issioner 'a
not res$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 &$st co'+ensation for a conde'ned +ro+ert is %asicall a &$dicial
f$nction. As the co$rt is not %o$nd % the co''issionersD re+ort# it 'a 'a.e s$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$r% the lower co$rtDs fact$al finding on a++eal when there
is clear error or gra-e a%$se of discretion. 27
6e hold that the co$rts %elow 'ade an erroneo$s deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation in
this case.
In the first +lace# the &$st co'+ensation +rescri%ed herein is %ased on the co''issionersD
reco''endation which in t$rn is fo$nded on the Fa$ditedF state'ents of A'ere" that the
+ro+ert is worth 07#793#423.9:. As earlier +ointed o$t# while the co$rt 'a acce+t the
co''issionersD re+ort and render &$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$' . 2B
A'ere"Ds Fa$ditedF state'ent on the ac5$isition cost# cost of +ainting and 'a&or re+airs#
ta"es# and ins$rance +re'i$'s which totals 07#24:#1:8.13# contains the following
certification:
6e ha-e chec.ed the details of the transactions indicated in the foregoing sched$le of
Land and B$ilding Acco$nt as at *an$ar B2# 28:; with the %oo.s and records of A'ere"
Electronics (0hili++ines) Cor+oration which were +resented to $s for e"a'ination and
ha-e fo$nd the details to %e in accordance therewith. 6e ha-e not 'ade an a$dit of the
%oo.s of acco$nts of A'ere" Electronics (0hili++ines) Cor+oration.
A'ere"Ds other Fa$ditedF state'ent on the 'aintenance e"+enses of the +ro+ert wherein
it allegedl inc$rred the a'o$nt of 0294#9B8.48 contains a si'ilar certification % the
sa'e acco$nting fir' s+ecificall stating that the a$ditor did not 'a.e an a$dit of the
%oo.s of acco$nts of A'ere". 29
It is clear fro' these certifications that the acco$nting fir' which iss$ed the' 'erel
co'+ared the fig$res in the sched$les or Fa$ditedF state'ents with those of the records
and %oo.s 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$dit is to
e"a'ine an acco$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 Fa$ditF is
so'eti'es restricted to a 'ere 'athe'atical +rocess# it generall incl$des in-estigation#
the weighing of e-idence# and deciding whether ite's sho$ld or sho$ld not %e incl$ded in
the acco$nt . 2: A$dit in-ol-es the e"ercise of discretionC it is a 5$asi/&$dicial f$nction.
23 ,he acc$rac of the Fa$ditedF state'ents herein is therefore s$s+ect.
Besides the fact that the +etitioner was not f$rnished a co+ of the a$dited state'ents
which were also not introd$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$nting fir'# were li.ewise not
+resented d$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
Fa$ditedF state'ents of A'ere" which 'a ha-e %een +re'ised on false or 'ista.en
data. 28
,his Co$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 ta.ing of the go-ern'ent or at the ti'e of the &$dg'ent of the co$rt# whiche-er
co'es first. 72
In this case# the iss$ance of the conde'nation order and the act$al ta.ing of the +ro+ert
%oth occ$rred in Octo%er# 28:9. Accordingl# the a++raisal 'ade % A'+il Realt and
A++raisal Co.# Inc. on *$ne 9# 28:9# which date is nearest to that of the act$al ta.ing of
the +ro+ert# sho$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 *$ne 9#28:9 a++raisal fi"ing at 07#144#444 the fair 'ar.et -al$e of
the +ro+ert# is %olstered % the fact that on *$ne 1# 28:9# ,raders Co''odities
Cor+oration# thro$gh its lawer# Sedfre A. OrdoEe> offered to %$ the +ro+ert at
07#: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#B4B#1:4 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 . 7B
!$ch as we reali>e the need of the go-ern'ent# $nder these tring ti'es# to get the %est
+ossi%le +rice for the e"+ro+riated +ro+ert considering the ceaseless and contin$ing
necessit 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$%stantiate its clai' that the +ro+ert is
worth the lower a'o$nt of 02#344#444. In contrast# A'ere" s$%'itted e-idence
consisting of the aforesaid *$ne 9# 28:9 a++raisal re+ort which fi"ed the fair 'ar.et -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#B4B#1:4.44 therefro'# the +etitioner shall +a the %alance with legal
interest fro' Octo%er 2B# 28:9.
SO ORDERED.
E0IA VS. D@LAH
Facts: ,he fo$r +arcels of land which are the s$%&ect of this case is where the !actan
E"+ort 0rocessing Ione A$thorit in Ce%$ (E0IA) 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
*$dge D$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 $nder 0D 29BB# the %asis of &$st co'+ensation shall %e fair and according to the fair
'ar.et -al$e declared % the owner of the +ro+ert so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated# or % the
assessor# whiche-er is lower. S$ch o%&ection and the s$%se5$ent !otion for
Reconsideration were denied and hearing was set for the rece+tion of the co''issionerJs
re+ort. E0IA then filed this +etition for certiorari and 'anda'$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 29BB is $nconstit$tional.
<eld: ,he S$+re'e Co$rt r$led that the 'ode of deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation in
0D 29BB 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$re 'a 'a.e the initial deter'ination
%$t when a +art clai's a -iolation of the g$arantee in the Bill of Rights that the +ri-ate
+art 'a not %e ta.en for +$%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$ded fro' loo.ing into the &$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$dit# and
BAL,AIAR AK@INO# !inister of 0$%lic <ighwas# res+ondents.
,his e"+ro+riation case is 5$ite $ni5$e. ,wo lots of +ri-ate ownershi+ were ta.en % 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$t
+rotest % the latter.
,he lots %elong to the +etitioners# *ose !a. Ansaldo and !aria Angela Ansaldo# are
co-ered % title in their na'es 2 and ha-e an aggregate area of 2#412 s5$are 'eters.
,hese lots were ta.en 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:B. 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:B# B
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 &$st co'+ensation of +ro+ert
ta.en for +$%lic $se sho$ld %e the c$rrent and fair 'ar.et -al$e thereof as declared % the
owner or ad'inistrator# or s$ch 'ar.et -al$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+riation
s$it %e forthwith instit$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$ested the 0ro-incial
Assessor of Ri>al to 'a.e a redeter'ination of the 'ar.et -al$e of the AnsaldosD +ro+ert
in accordance with 0D :;. ; ,he new -al$ation was 'ade# after which the A$ditor of the
B$rea$ of 0$%lic <ighwas forwarded the AnsaldosD clai' to the A$ditor =eneral with
the reco''endation that +a'ent %e 'ade on the %asis of the Fc$rrent and fair 'ar.et
-al$e# . . . and not on the fair 'ar.et -al$e at the ti'e of ta.ing. :
,he Co''ission on A$dit# howe-er# declined to ado+t the reco''endation. In a decision
handed down on Se+te'%er 7;# 28:B# the Acting Chair'an r$led that Fthe a'o$nt of
co'+ensation to %e +aid to the clai'ants is to %e deter'ined as of the ti'e of the ta.ing
of the s$%&ect lots# 3 i.e. 281:. ,he r$ling was reiterated % the Co''ission on
Se+te'%er 3# 28:3# and again on *an$ar 79# 28:8 when it denied the AnsaldosD 'otion
for reconsideration. 8 It is these r$lings of the Co''ission on A$dit that the Ansaldos
ha-e a++ealed to this Co$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 29BB) no
longer 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 Ione 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 ta.en 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$ch a ta.ing altho$gh the .new
that no e"+ro+riation case had %een co''enced at all. ,here is therefore no reason# as
regards the AnsaldosD +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$al ta.ing of +ossession %
the e"+ro+riating entit or# as the Ansaldos 'aintain# onl after con-eance of title to the
e"+ro+riator +$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$tion of an e"+ro+riation action +recedes the ta.ing
of the +ro+ert s$%&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 ta.es 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$ite
e"traordinar in that +ossession was ta.en % the e"+ro+riator 'ore than 14 ears +rior to
s$it. In these instances# this Co$rt has r$led that the &$st co'+ensation shall %e
deter'ined as of the ti'e of ta.ing# not as of the ti'e of filing of the action of e'inent
do'ain.
In the conte"t of the StateDs inherent +ower of e'inent do'ain# there is a Fta.ingF when
the owner is act$all de+ri-ed or dis+ossessed of his +ro+ertC when there is a +ractical
destr$ction or a 'aterial i'+air'ent of the -al$e of his +ro+ert or when he is de+ri-ed
of the ordinar $se thereof. 27 ,here is a Fta.ingF in this sense when the e"+ro+riator
enters +ri-ate +ro+ert not onl for a 'o'entar +eriod %$t for a 'ore +er'anent
d$ration# for the +$r+ose of de-oting the +ro+ert to a +$%lic $se in s$ch a 'anner as to
o$st the owner and de+ri-e hi' of all %eneficial en&o'ent thereof. 2B For ownershi+#
after all# Fis nothing witho$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 $se# there is ta.ing within the Constit$tional sense.
21 @nder these nor's# there was $ndo$%tedl a ta.ing of the AnsaldosD +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 ta.ing# 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 ta.es +ossession %efore the instit$tion of the conde'nation
+roceedings# the -al$e sho$ld %e fi"ed as of the ti'e of the ta.ing of said +ossession# not
of filing of the co'+laint and the latter sho$ld %e the %asis for the deter'ination of the
-al$e# when the ta.ing of the +ro+ert in-ol-ed coincides with or is s$%se5$ent to# the
co''ence'ent of the +roceedings. Indeed# otherwise# the +ro-ision of R$le ;8# Section
B# directing that co'+ensation %e deter'ined as of the date of the filing of the co'+laintD
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# $nder which the co'+laint coincides or e-en
+recedes the ta.ing of the +ro+ert % the +laintiff.
,he reason for the r$le# as +ointed o$t in R+$%lic -. Larae# 2; is that L
. . . (6)here +ro+ert is ta.en ahead of the filing of the conde'nation +roceedings# the
-al$e thereof 'a %e enchanced % the +$%lic +$r+ose for which it is ta.enC the entr %
the +laintiff $+on the +ro+ert 'a ha-e de+reciated its -al$e there%C 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$all losesC it is not intended that his co'+ensation
shall e"tend %eond his loss or in&$r. And what he loses is onl the act$al -al$e of his
+ro+ert at the ti'e it is ta.en. ,his is the onl wa that co'+ensation to %e +aid can %e
tr$l &$st i.e.#F&$stC not onl to the indi-id$al whose +ro+ert is ta.en %$t# to the +$%lic#
which is to +a for it.
Clearl# then# the -al$e of the AnsaldosD +ro+ert '$st %e ascertained as of the ear 281:#
when it was act$all ta.en# and not at the ti'e of the filing of the e"+ro+riation s$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 6or.s 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
ta.ing $ntil f$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) see.s 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. 9B9:;#
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 $nder ,C, No. !/2:3;9 of the Registr of Deeds of
Ri>al.
On the other hand# +etitioner N0C is a go-ern'ent/owned and controlled cor+oration
created for the +$r+ose of $nderta.ing the de-elo+'ent and generation of +ower fro'
whate-er so$rce. N0CJs charter (Re+$%lic Act No. ;B89) a$thori>es the cor+oration to
ac5$ire +ri-ate +ro+ert and e"ercise the right of e'inent do'ain.2aw+hi2.net
N0C re5$ires 28#17B s5$are 'eters of the res+ondentsJ afore'entioned +ro+ert# across
which its 944N- Nalaaan/San *ose ,rans'ission Line 0ro&ect will tra-erse. N0CJs
Segregation 0lanB for the +$r+ose shows that the desired right/of/wa will c$t thro$gh
the res+ondentsJ land# in s$ch a 'anner that BB#B87 s5$are 'eters thereof will %e left
se+arated fro' 88#B:7 s5$are 'eters of the +ro+ert. 6ithin the +ortion so$ght to %e
e"+ro+riated stand fr$it/%earing tress# s$ch as 'ango# a-ocado# &ac.fr$it# cas$# 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$ed a Conde'nation Order# granting N0C the right
to ta.e +ossession of the area so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated. In the sa'e Order# the co$rt
directed the +arties to no'inate their res+ecti-e co''issioners# with a third 'e'%er to
%e no'inated and a++ointed % the co$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$to
!allo of its Legal De+art'entC for the res+ondents# !r. Basilio Af$ang# a geodetic
engineer and a real estate %ro.er % +rofessionC 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$%&ect of the e"+ro+riation +rior to the ta.ing of +ossession
thereof. On A+ril 77# 2882# with N0C ha-ing co'+lied with the de+osit re5$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 :# 288B# 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 0B4.44 +er s5$are 'eter or
0937#;84.449 in the aggregateC and for the i'+ro-e'ents thereon# Af$ang +laced a
-al$ation of 07#48B#894.44. ,he fig$res are in contrast with the res+ondentsJ own
-al$ation of 0;44#;44.44# for the area# and 01#8B9#944.44# for the i'+ro-e'ents.
On Se+te'%er 21# 288B# N0C filed an a'ended co'+laint to ac5$ire onl 28#17B 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$iring an ease'ent of right/
of/wa o-er the res+ondentsJ +ro+ert and that ownershi+ of the area o-er which the
right/of/wa will %e esta%lished shall re'ain with the res+ondents. For this reason# N0C
clai's that it sho$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
'ar.et -al$e of the +ro+ert as declared % the res+ondents or % the !$nici+al Assessor#
whiche-er is lower# as +ro-ided for $nder Section B/A of Re+$%lic Act No. ;B89# as
a'ended % 0residential Decree 8B3.;
,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 $se of the area. Nonetheless# she reco''ended that the deter'ination of &$st
co'+ensation sho$ld %e relegated to Fe"+ert a++raisers.F:
Fro' the e-idence %efore it# the trial co$rt 'ade a deter'ination that the 'ar.et -al$e of
the +ro+ert is 07.48 +er s5$are 'eter# or 014#981.4: for the entire 28#17B s5$are 'eters
needed % N0C# and not the 0B4.44 +er s5$are 'eter clai'ed % the res+ondents. Neither
did the trial co$rt consider N0CJs reliance on Section B/A of Re+$%lic Act No. ;B89# as
a'ended % 0residential Decree 8B3# 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 of0B71#:94.44 offered % N0C for the i'+ro-e'ents# as the sa'e
is %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 &$dg'ent as
follows:
6<EREFORE# in -iew of the foregoing# &$dg'ent is here% rendered:
2. E"+ro+riating in fa-or of ON0CP a +arcel of land co-ering a total area of 28#17B s5.'.
co-ered % ,C, No. !/2:3;4 owned % the Ores+ondentsPC
7. Ordering the a'o$nt of 014#981.4: as &$st co'+ensation for the 28#17B s5$are 'eters
of land affected % the e"+ro+riationsC and the a'o$nt of 0B71#:94.44 as reasona%le
co'+ensation for the i'+ro-e'ents on the land e"+ro+riated with legal interest fro' the
ti'e of +ossession % the +laintiff. No +rono$nce'ent as to costs.
SO ORDERED. (6ords in %rac.ets s$++lied.)
,he res+ondents 'o-ed for reconsideration# +resenting for the first ti'e a doc$'ent
entitled FB$rea$ of Internal Re-en$e Circ$lar of A++raisal#F which shows that for the
ear 2839# lands in Baranga Sa'+aloc were -al$ed at0B4.44 +er s5$are 'eterC for the
ear 2887# at 034.44 +er s5$are 'eterC and for ear 2881# at 0244.44 +er s5$are 'eter.
Res+ondents 'aintain that the +rice of 0B4.44 +er s5$are 'eter for the needed area of
28#17B s5$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 doc.eted as CA/
=.R. CV No. 9B9:;. ,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 $+on a 288B ta" declaration# F%eing
onl two ears re'o-ed fro' the ti'e of ta.ing.F8 ,he a++ellate co$rt deter'ined the
ti'e of ta.ing to %e in 2882. ,h$s# the greater -al$e of 082B#277.44 as declared in ,a"
Declaration No. 422/7;;: dated *$l 7B# 288B sho$ld %e the %asis for deter'ining &$st
co'+ensation. 6ith regard to the -al$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#17B s5$are 'eters of land affected is increased to
022;#9B3.44# and the reasona%le co'+ensation for the i'+ro-e'ents thereon is li.ewise
increased to 0B79#479.44# with legal interest fro' the ti'e of +ossession % the +laintiff/
a++ellee NA0OCOR. No +rono$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#17B s5$are 'eters) of their +ro+ert:
2. Is it to %e %ased on the 2831 or the 288B -al$ationQ
7. Sho$ld N0C +a for the -al$e of the land %eing ta.en# or sho$ld it %e li'ited to what is
+ro-ided for $nder 0.D. 8B3# that is# ten +er cent (24M) of its 'ar.et -al$e as declared %
the owner or the assessor (whiche-er is lower)# considering that the +$r+ose for which the
+ro+ert is %eing ta.en is 'erel for the esta%lish'ent of a safe and free +assage for its
o-erhead trans'ission linesQ
,here is no iss$e as to the i'+ro-e'ents. Since the 0B79#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 of0B79#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#17B s5$are/'eter +ortion of the res+ondentsJ +ro+ert.
In e'inent do'ain cases# the ti'e of ta.ing is the filing of the co'+laint# if there was no
act$al ta.ing +rior thereto. <ence# in this case# the -al$e of the +ro+ert at the ti'e of the
filing of the co'+laint on No-e'%er 74# 2884 sho$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 ta.ing 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$e# while the CA# at its 288B
worth. Neither of the two deter'inations is correct. For +$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 ta.ing 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$es
en&o stead $+ward 'o-e'ent. It was li.ewise erroneo$s for the a++ellate co$rt to ha-e
fi"ed the -al$e of the +ro+ert on the %asis of a 288B 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 ta.ing.
,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'#2B the Co$rt r$led that the e5$i-alent to
%e rendered for the +ro+ert to %e ta.en shall %e s$%stantial# f$ll# a'+le and# as '$st
a++l to this case# real. ,his '$st %e ta.en to 'ean# a'ong others# that the -al$e as of the
ti'e of ta.ing 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 ta.en fro' its
owner % the e"+ro+riator. In this case# this si'+l 'eans the +ro+ertJs fair 'ar.et -al$e
at the ti'e of the filing of the co'+laint# or Fthat s$' of 'one which a +erson desiro$s
%$t not co'+elled to %$# and an owner willing %$t not co'+elled to sell# wo$ld agree on
as a +rice to %e gi-en and recei-ed therefor.F21 ,he 'eas$re is not the ta.erJs 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 'ar.et -al$es deter'ined % the +ro-incial or cit
a++raisal co''itteeC these -al$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 ta.ing is the +rinci+al
criterion for deter'ining how '$ch &$st co'+ensation sho$ld %e gi-en to the
landowner2; All the facts as to the condition of the +ro+ert and its s$rro$ndings# as well
as its i'+ro-e'ents and ca+a%ilities# sho$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# ta.ing 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 B/A of
Re+$%lic Act No. ;B89# as a'ended % 0residential Decree 8B3.23 ,r$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$ld
retain f$ll ownershi+ of the +ro+ert ta.en. Nonetheless# the ac5$isition of s$ch ease'ent
is not gratis. ,he li'itations on the $se of the +ro+ert ta.en for an indefinite +eriod
wo$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 ta.en.28
6hile the +ower of e'inent do'ain res$lts in the ta.ing or a++ro+riation of title to# and
+ossession of# the e"+ro+riated +ro+ert# no cogent reason a++ears wh said +ower 'a
not %e a-ailed of to i'+ose onl a %$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 the
i'+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$ling in N0C -. !an$%a
Agro/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 $se of the +ro+ert. For this reason# the latter is entitled to +a'ent
of a &$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$re. !oreo-er# not to %e
disco$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'%C in&$r# death or destr$ction to
life 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$ght to %e e"+ro+riated in this case is# at its longest e"tent# B7;.B1
'eters# and thro$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;#9B3.44# as and % wa of
&$st co'+ensation for the 28#17B s5$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 ta.en# %ased on o$r
+rono$nce'ents hereon. ,he sa'e decision# howe-er# is AFFIR!ED# insofar as it
+ertains to the award of0B79#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$rt of
A++eals in CA/=.R. CV No. 98741O2P affir'ing the &$dg'ent of : !a 288; of the
Regional ,rial Co$rt# Branch 2B# Ce%$ Cit# in Ci-il Case No. CEB/21;B7# a case for
e'inent do'ain# which fi"ed the -al$ation of the land s$%&ect thereof on the %asis of the
reco''endation of the co''issioners a++ointed % it.
,he 'aterial o+erati-e facts are not dis+$ted.
On 2: Se+te'%er 288B# +etitioner Cit of Ce%$ filed in Ci-il Case No. CEB/21;B7 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 +$%lic road which shall ser-e as an
accessRrelief road of =orordo A-en$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$ita%le
site for the +$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 'ar.et -al$e of the +ro+ert to
ena%le the +etitioner to ta.e i''ediate +ossession of the +ro+ert +$rs$ant to Section 28
of R.A. No. :2;4.O7P
Res+ondents# filed a 'otion to dis'iss the co'+laint %eca$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 a
single +ri-ate entit# the Ce%$ <oldings# Inc. 0etitioner co$ld si'+l %$ directl fro'
the' the +ro+ert at its fair 'ar.et -al$e if it wanted to# &$st li.e 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 7B 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.OBP
On 21 Dece'%er 2881# the +arties e"ec$ted and s$%'itted to the trial co$rt an
Agree'entO1P wherein the declared that the ha-e +artiall settled the case and in
consideration thereof the agreed:
2. ,hat the SECOND 0AR,H here% confor's to the intention to OsicP the
FIRS, 0AR,H in e"+ro+riating their +arcels of land in the a%o-e/cited case
as for +$%lic +$r+ose and for the %enefit of the general +$%licC
7. ,hat the SECOND 0AR,H agrees to +art with the ownershi+ of the s$%&ect
+arcels of land in fa-or of the FIRS, 0AR,H +ro-ided the latter will +a &$st
co'+ensation for the sa'e in the a'o$nt deter'ined % the co$rt after d$e
notice and hearingC
B. ,hat in the 'eanti'e the SECOND 0AR,H agrees to recei-e the a'o$nt of
ONE !ILLION SEVEN <@NDRED EI=<,H SIA ,<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$rtC
1. ,hat the FIRS, 0AR,H in the light of the iss$ance of the 6rit of 0ossession
Order dated Se+te'%er 72# 2881 iss$ed % the <onora%le Co$rt# agreed to
ta.e +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;#144.44C
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$se and
the other str$ct$re that 'a %e located thereon at their own e"+enseC
;. ,hat the FIRS, 0AR,H and the SECOND 0AR,H &ointl +etition the
<onora%le Co$rt to render &$dg'ent in said Ci-il Case No. CEB/21;B7 in
accordance with this A=REE!EN,C
:. ,hat the &$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$rt a++ointed three co''issioners to
deter'ine the &$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'anC Alfredo Cisneros# who was no'inated % res+ondentsC 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;#O9P 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$' of
+esos: ,6EN,H FO@R !ILLION EI=<, <@NDRED SIA,H/FIVE ,<O@SAND
AND NINE <@NDRED ,<IR,H (071#3;9.8B4.44) re+resenting the co'+ensation
'entioned in the Co'+laint.
0laintiff and defendants are directed to +a the following co''issionerJs feeC
2. ,o 0aler'o L$go / 072#444.44
7. ,o <er%ert B$ot / 028#444.44
B. ,o Alfredo Cisneros / 028#444.44
6itho$t +rono$nce'ent as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
0etitioner filed a 'otion for reconsideration on the gro$nd that the co''issionersJ
re+ort was inacc$rate since it incl$ded an area which was not s$%&ect to e"+ro+riation.
!ore s+ecificall# it contended that Lot No. 2973 contains :8B s5$are 'eters %$t the
act$al area to %e e"+ro+riated is onl 1:3 s5$are 'eters. ,he re'aining B29 s5$are
'eters is the s$%&ect of a se+arate e"+ro+riation +roceeding in Ci-il Case No. CEB/3B13#
then +ending %efore Branch 8 of the Regional ,rial Co$rt of Ce%$ Cit.
On 2; A$g$st 288;# the co''issioners s$%'itted an a'ended assess'ent for the
1:3 s5$are 'eters of Lot No. 2973 and fi"ed it at 027#371.24 +er s5$are 'eter# or in the
a'o$nt of 074#37;#BB8.94. ,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;.O;P 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 doc.eted the case as CA/
=.R. CV No. 98741. 0etitioner alleged that the lower co$rt erred in fi"ing the a'o$nt of
&$st co'+ensation at 074#37;#BB8.94. ,he &$st co'+ensation sho$ld %e %ased on the
+re-ailing 'ar.et +rice of the +ro+ert at the co''ence'ent of the e"+ro+riation
+roceedings.
,he +etitioner did not con-ince the Co$rt of A++eals. In its decision of 22 Octo%er
2888#O:P 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 288B and not at the ti'e the +ro+ert was act$all ta.en in 2881# +$rs$ant to
the decision in ?National 0ower Cor+oration -s. Co$rt of A++eals.SO3P
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 &$st co'+ensation shall %e fi"ed %
co''issioners a++ointed % the co$rtC (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$are 'eter lot at 074#37;#BB8.94C hence# it was esto++ed fro' attac.ing the
re+ort on which the decision was %asedC and (B) the deter'ined &$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$al ta.ing in 2881.
E'inent do'ain is a f$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.O8P <owe-er# the =o-ern'ent '$st +a the
owner thereof &$st co'+ensation as consideration therefor.
In the case at %ar# the a++lica%le law as to the +oint of rec.oning for the
deter'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 ta.ing. ,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 'a
i''ediatel ta.e +ossession of the +ro+ert $+on the filing of the e"+ro+riation
+roceedings and $+on 'a.ing a de+osit with the +ro+er co$rt of at least fifteen +ercent
(29M) of the fair 'ar.et -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 'ar.et
-al$e at the ti'e of the ta.ing of the +ro+ert.
,he +etitioner has 'isread o$r r$ling in ,he National 0ower Cor+. -s. Co$rt of
A++eals.O24P 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 ta.en and not at the
date of the co''ence'ent of the e"+ro+riation +roceedings.S
Also# the trial co$rt followed the then go-erning +roced$ral law on the 'atter# which
was 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 (B) co'+etent and disinterested +ersons as
co''issioners to ascertain and re+ort to the co$rt the &$st co'+ensation for the +ro+ert
so$ght to %e ta.en. ,he order of a++oint'ent shall designate the ti'e and +lace of the
first session of the hearing to %e held % the co''issioners and s+ecif the ti'e within
which their re+ort is to %e filed with the co$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 2B29 of the
Ci-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$ld %e co'+lied with in good faith.
Art. 2B29. Contracts are +erfected % 'ere consent# and fro' that 'o'ent the +arties are
%o$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# $sage
and law.
F$rther'ore# d$ring the hearing on 77 No-e'%er 288;# +etitioner did not inter+ose a
serio$s o%&ection.O22P 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.O27P 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 &$st
co'+ensation shall %e deter'ined at the ti'e of the filing of the co'+laint for
e"+ro+riation#O2BP s$ch law cannot +re-ail o-er R.A. :2;4# which is a s$%stanti-e law.
O21P
6<EREFORE# finding no re-ersi%le error in the assailed &$dg'ent of the Co$rt of
A++eals in CA/=.R. CV No. 98741# the +etition in this case is here% DENIED.
No +rono$nce'ent as to costs.
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$rt# 0a'+anga# a co'+laint for e'inent do'ain for the ta.ing for +$%lic $se of fi-e
(9) +arcels of land# owned or clai'ed % res+ondents# with a total aggregate area of
93#B22 s5$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 ;B#774 s5'.
,he +etitioner de+osited the a'o$nt. ,he trial co$rt allowed res+ondents a 'otion to
withdraw 09#3B2#244.44# with a %alance of 0;84#844.44 as the +$rchase -al$e.
B 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$es were in B94# B:9# and 2:4 +er s5'
fro' ,iglao# Atien>a and Orocio.
In !a 28# 288B# the trial co$rt rendered &$dg'ent fi"ing the a'o$nt of &$st
co'+ensation to %e +aid % +etitioner for the ta.ing of the entire area of ;B#774 s5$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 ta.ing of res+ondentsJ +ro+ert for the
e"+ansion of the N0CJs !e"ico S$%/stationQ
<eld: 0B:9.44 +er s5'. CA decision 'odified.
Ratio:
,he +arcels of land so$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 $nder o+eration land transfer of the
De+art'ent of Agrarian Refor'. <owe-er# the land has %een re/classified as residential.
,he nat$re and character of the land at the ti'e of its ta.ing 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 'ar.et -al$e at 0B:9.44
+er s5$are 'eter. ,his a++ears to %e the closest -al$ation to the 'ar.et -al$e of lots in
the ad&oining f$ll de-elo+ed s$%di-ision. Considering that the s$%&ect +arcels of land
are $nde-elo+ed raw land# the +rice of 0B:9.44 +er s5$are 'eter wo$ld a++ear to the
Co$rt as the &$st co'+ensation for the ta.ing of s$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$ding the sa'e in the area to %e ta.en.
,he trial co$rt erroneo$sl ordered do$%le +a'ent for B#;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 BANN 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. 223:19 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 &$stice L or an &$stice for that 'atter L 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 $+on to tilt the %alance in fa-or of the +oor# to who' the
Constit$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 ali.e# according to the 'andate
of the law. 7
In 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. 223:19) and Land Ban. of the 0hili++ines (=.R. No. 223:27)
following the ad-erse r$ling % the Co$rt of A++eals in CA/=.R. S0 No. BB1;9.
<owe-er# $+on 'otion filed % +ri-ate res+ondents# the +etitions were ordered
consolidated.B
0etitioners assail the decision of the Co$rt of A++eals +ro'$lgated on Octo%er 74# 2881#
which granted +ri-ate res+ondentsD 0etition for Certiorari and !anda'$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 %ondsC
%) Res+ondent Land%an. is ordered to i''ediatel de+osit L not 'erel Fear'ar.F#
Freser-eF or Fde+osit in tr$stF L with an accessi%le %an. designated % res+ondent DAR
in the na'es of the following +etitioners the following a'o$nts in cash and ingo-ern'ent
financial instr$'ents L within the +ara'eters of Sec. 23 (2) of RA ;;9::
0 2#199#74:.B2 0edro L. Ha+
0 2B9#137.27 <eirs of E'iliano Santiago
0 29#821#27:.:: A!ADCORC
c) ,he DAR/designated %an. is ordered to allow the +etitioners to withdraw the a%o-e/
de+osited a'o$nts witho$t +re&$dice to the final deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation %
the +ro+er a$thoritiesC and
d) 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 B4 das after the are s$%'itted for decision. 1
Li.ewise# +etitioners see. the re-ersal of the Resol$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 and
s$%&ected to transfer sche'es to 5$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$nts res+ecti-el
Fear'ar.edF# Freser-edF and Fde+osited in tr$st acco$ntsF for +ri-ate res+ondents# and to
allow the' to withdraw the sa'e.
,hro$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 F(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 0:B9#BB:.:: and
0:28#3;8.91 ha-e %een ear'ar.ed for Landowner 0edro L. Ha+ for the +arcels of lands
co-ered % ,C, Nos. ;737 and ;73B# res+ecti-el# and iss$ed in lie$ thereof ,C/9;B and
,C/9;7# res+ecti-el# in the na'es of listed %eneficiaries (ANNEAES FCF G FDF)
witho$t notice to +etitioner Ha+ and witho$t co'+ling with the re5$ire'ent of Section
2; (e) of RA ;;9: to de+osit the co'+ensation in cash and Land%an. %onds in an
accessi%le %an.. (Rollo# +. ;).
,he a%o-e allegations are not dis+$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$r# N@EVA ECI*A with an area of 23.9;29
hectares co-ered % ,C, No. N,/;4B98 of the registr of Deeds of N$e-a Eci&a#
registered in the na'e of the late E'iliano F. SantiagoC 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 @nderta.ing (ANNEA FBF) to +a rentals to the
LandBan. for the $se of their far'lots e5$i-alent to at least 79M of the net har-estC that
on 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$nt
of 02B9#137.27# that on 71 Fe%r$ar 2887# the Land%an. reser-ed in tr$st 02B9#137.27 in
the na'e of E'iliano F. Santiago. (ANNEA FEFC Rollo#
+. :)C that the %eneficiaries sto++ed +aing rentals to the landowners after the signed the
Act$al ,illerDs Deed of @nderta.ing co''itting the'sel-es to +a rentals to the
LandBan. (Rollo# +. 2BB).
,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 @nderta.ing (A,D@# for %re-it)C 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 L with res+ect to its +ro+erties located in San Francisco# K$e>on L that
the +ro+erties of A!ADCOR in San Francisco# K$e>on consist of a +arcel of land
co-ered % ,C, No. B1B21 with an area of 748.8729 hectares and another +arcel co-ered
% ,C, No. 243B7 with an area of 2;B.;238 hectaresC that a s$''ar ad'inistrati-e
+roceeding to deter'ine co'+ensation of the +ro+ert co-ered % ,C, No. B1B21 was
cond$cted % the DARAB in K$e>on Cit witho$t notice to the landownerC that a
decision was rendered on 71 No-e'%er 2887 (ANNEA FFF) fi"ing the co'+ensation for
the +arcel of land co-ered % ,C, No. B1B21 with an area of 748.8729 hectares at
07#:;3#B7;.B1 and ordering the Land%an. to +a or esta%lish a tr$st acco$nt for said
a'o$nt in the na'e of A!ADCORC and that the tr$st acco$nt in the a'o$nt of
07#:;3#B7;.B1 fi"ed in the decision was esta%lished % adding 02#83;#138.:B to the first
tr$st acco$nt esta%lished on 28 Dece'%er 2882 (ANNEA F=F). 6ith res+ect to +etitioner
A!ADCORDs +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 an
area of 2#;78.19:3 hectaresDC 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 %$t no action was ta.en
thereafter % the DAR to fi" the co'+ensation for said landC that on 72 A+ril 288B# a tr$st
acco$nt in the na'e of A!ADCOR was esta%lished in the a'o$nt of 027#71:#72:.3BD#
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$ed
witho$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 ta.en and the
titles are cancelled as +ro-ided $nder Section 2;(e) of RA ;;9:. 8 0ri-ate res+ondents
also assail the fact that the DAR and the Land%an. 'erel Fear'ar.edF# Fde+osited in
tr$stF or Freser-edF the co'+ensation in their na'es as landowners des+ite the clear
'andate that %efore ta.ing +ossession of the +ro+ert# the co'+ensation '$st %e
de+osited in cash or in %onds. 24
0etitioner DAR# howe-er# 'aintained that Ad'inistrati-e Order No. 8 is a -alid e"ercise
of its r$le/'a.ing +ower +$rs$ant to Section 18 of RA ;;9:. 22 !oreo-er# the DAR
'aintained that the iss$ance of the FCertificate of De+ositF % the Land%an. was a
s$%stantial co'+liance with Section 2;(e) of RA ;;9: and the r$ling in the case of
Association of S'all Landowners in the 0hili++ines# Inc.# et al. -s. <on. Secretar of
Agrarian Refor'# =.R. No. :3:17# *$l 21# 2838 (2:9 SCRA B1B). 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 Freser-edRde+ositedF were also $sed. 2B
On Octo%er 74# 2881# the res+ondent co$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.
223:19 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$tion of the cases it has filed for &$st
co'+ensation.
Anent the first assign'ent of error# +etitioners 'aintain that the word Fde+ositF as $sed in
Section 2;(e) of RA ;;9: referred 'erel to the act of de+ositing and in no wa e"cl$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 L
""" """ """
(e) @+on recei+t % the landowner of the corres+onding +a'ent or# in case of re&ection
or no res+onse fro' the landowner# $+on the de+osit with an accessi%le %an. designated
% the DAR of the co'+ensation in cash or in LB0 %onds in accordance with this Act# the
DAR shall ta.e i''ediate +ossession of the land and shall re5$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 FcashF or in FLB0
%ondsF. 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$de a Ftr$st acco$ntF a'ong the -alid 'odes of
de+osit# that sho$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$ced that a Ftr$st acco$ntF is allowed. In s$'#
there is no a'%ig$it in Section 2;(e) of RA ;;9: to warrant an e"+anded constr$ction of
the ter' Fde+ositF.
,he concl$si-e effect of ad'inistrati-e constr$ction is not a%sol$te. Action of an
ad'inistrati-e agenc 'a %e dist$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$lations cannot e"tend
the law and a'end a legislati-e enact'ent# 28 for settled is the r$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 the
for'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 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 FcashF or in FLB0 %ondsF. In the sa'e -ein# +etitioners
cannot in-o.e 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$rt therefore
did not co''it an error in stri.ing down Ad'inistrati-e Circ$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 the
cases 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 Section
2;(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
FAssociation of S'all Landowners in the 0hil. Inc. -s. Secretar of Agrarian Refor'F. 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$e +rocess % ar%itraril
transferring title %efore the land is f$ll +aid for '$st also %e re&ected.
Nota%l# howe-er# the aforecited case was $sed % res+ondent co$rt in discarding
+etitionersD assertion as it fo$nd that:
. . . des+ite the Fre-ol$tionarF character of the e"+ro+riation en-isioned $nder RA ;;9:
which led the S$+re'e Co$rt# in the case of Association of S'all Landowners in the 0hil.
Inc. -s. Secretar of Agrarian Refor' (2:9 SCRA B1B)# to concl$de that F+a'ents of the
&$st co'+ensation is not alwas re5$ired to %e 'ade f$ll in 'oneF L e-en as the
S$+re'e Co$rt ad'its in the sa'e case Fthat the traditional 'edi$' for the +a'ent of
&$st co'+ensation is 'one and no otherF L the S$+re'e Co$rt in said case did not
a%andon the Frecogni>ed r$le . . . that title to the +ro+ert e"+ro+riated shall +ass fro' the
owner to the e"+ro+riator onl $+on f$ll +a'ent of the &$st co'+ensation.F 7B(E'+hasis
s$++lied)
6e agree with the o%ser-ations of res+ondent co$rt. ,he r$ling in the FAssociationF case
'erel recogni>ed the e"traordinar nat$re of the e"+ro+riation to %e $nderta.en $nder
RA ;;9: there% allowing a de-iation fro' the traditional 'ode of +a'ent of
co'+ensation and recogni>ed +a'ent other than in cash. It did not# howe-er# dis+ense
with the settled r$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 'a.e 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$se the
re&ected the DARDs -al$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+ondentsD +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 ta.ing# $nder an a$thorit (the
FAssociationF 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
landownersD 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 $se and +ossession of his +ro+ert for which he
sho$ld %e fairl and i''ediatel co'+ensated. Fittingl# we reiterate the cardinal r$le
that:
. . . within the conte"t of the StateDs inherent +ower of e'inent do'ain# &$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 ta.ing. 6itho$t
+ro'+t +a'ent#co'+ensation cannot %e considered F&$stF 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'$lgation of the FAssociationF decision endea-ored to re'o-e all legal o%stacles
in the i'+le'entation of the Co'+rehensi-e Agrarian Refor' 0rogra' and clear the wa
for the tr$e freedo' of the far'er. 79 B$t des+ite this# cases in-ol-ing its i'+le'entation
contin$e to '$lti+l and clog the co$rtsD doc.ets. 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 the
rights of the landowners is e5$all i'+ortant %eca$se social &$stice cannot %e in-o.ed 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@I# !E,ROBANN# Das'ariEas#
Ca-ite Branch# REHNALDO FERRER# and S.N. 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) see.s to ann$l and set aside the No-e'%er 23# 7447 Decision2
of the Co$rt of A++eals (CA) in CA/=.R. CV No. ;:11;# which affir'ed the Dece'%er
73# 2888 Order7 of the I'$s# Ca-ite Regional ,rial Co$rt (R,C)# Branch AA in Ci-il
Case No. 232;/83# which fi"ed the fair 'ar.et -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. ;B89# 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'ariEas and I'$s# Ca-ite for the constr$ction and
'aintenance of the +ro+osed Das'ariEas/Ia+ote 7B4 .V ,rans'ission Line 0ro&ect.B
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$ght to %e e"+ro+riated# which were co-ered % ,ransfer
Certificates of ,itle (,C,) Nos. ,/B2BB7:# ,/;:23;1# and ,/1917:3. ,he affected areas
were 92.99# 23.79# and 21.;79 s5$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 with
Section 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# 2888
and A+ril 27# 2888# res+ecti-el.
<owe-er# the trial co$rt dro++ed the Dela Cr$> s+o$ses and their 'ortgagee# !etro%an.#
as +arties/defendants in its !a 22# 2888 Order#; in -iew of the !otion to Inter-ene filed
% res+ondentRinter-enor Virgilio !. Sa$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.N. 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'ariEas# !r. Regalado ,. Andaa# as 'e'%er. Res+ondent S.N.
Dna'ics did not no'inate an co''issioner.
As to the &$st co'+ensation for the +ro+ert of Sa$log# s$ccessor/in/interest of the Dela
Cr$> 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$lar ins+ection of S.N. Dna'icsJ +ro+ert# and on
Octo%er 3# 2888# the s$%'itted a re+ort to the trial co$rt# with the following +ertinent
findings:
In arri-ing o$r OsicP 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$ction of the National 0ower Cor+oration
(N0C) Das'ariEas/Ia+ote 7B4NV ,rans'ission Lines 0ro&ect# located within Baranga
Salitran# Das'ariEas# Ca-ite registered in the na'e of S.N. Dna'icOsP !an$fact$reOrP#
Cor+.# $nder ,ransfer Certificate of ,itle No. ,/1917:3.
II. NEI=<BOR<OOD DESCRI0,ION
,he neigh%orhood +artic$larl in the i''ediate -icinit is within a 'i"ed residential and
co''ercial area# sit$ated in the northern section of the !$nici+alit of Das'ariEas
which was trans-ersed OsicP % =en. E'ilio Ag$inaldo <ighwa OwhereP se-eral
residential s$%di-isions and co''ercial esta%lish'entOsP are located.
Considered as so'e of the i'+ortant i'+ro-e'ents OonP 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$rant
6alter'art Sho++ing !all
@!C !edical Center
Se-eral sa-ings and Co''ercial Ban.s as well as se-eral =asoline stations.
Co''$nit centers s$ch as# OsicP ch$rches# +$%lic 'ar.ets# sho++ing 'alls# %an.s and
gasoline stations are easil accessi%le fro' the s$%&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 %$ses as well ta"ica%s are OsicP
reg$larl a-aila%le along =en. E. E'ilio Ag$inaldo <ighwa OsicP.
" " " "
IV. <I=<ES, AND !OS, 0ROFI,ABLE @SE
" " " "
,he s$%&ect +ro+ert is sit$ated within the residentialRco''ercial >one and considering
the area affected and ta.ing 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 the
trend 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 !ARNE, DA,A
" " " "
Based on the analsis of data gathered and 'a.ing 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 'ar.et -al$e of the
s$%&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.N. 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 the
concerned +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$nit to file its o%&ections to it.
On Dece'%er 2# 2888# res+ondent Ferrer filed a 'otion ado+ting in toto the
co''issionersJ re+ort with res+ect to the -al$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&ect
was $nifor'l +egged at 0h0 24#444.44 +er s5$are 'eter.
Incidentall# on Fe%r$ar 22# 7444# res+ondent S.N. Dna'ics filed a 'otion infor'ing
the trial co$rt that in addition to the +ortion of its +ro+ert co-ered % ,C, No. ,/1917:3
so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated % +etitioner# the latter also too. +ossession of an 3.99/s5$are
'eter +ortion of S.N. Dna'icsJ +ro+ert co-ered % ,C, No. 94B131 for the sa'e
+$r+oseTTto ac5$ire an ease'ent of right/of/wa for the constr$ction and 'aintenance of
the +ro+osed Das'ariEas/Ia+ote 7B4 .V ,rans'ission Line 0ro&ect. Res+ondent S.N.
Dna'ics +raed that said +ortion %e incl$ded in the co'+$tation of the &$st
co'+ensation to %e +aid % +etitioner.
On the sa'e date# the I'$s# Ca-ite R,C granted S.N. Dna'icsJ 'otion to ha-e the 3.99/
s5$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 !$nici+al Assessor of Das'ariEas# Ca-ite.
K$oting fro' said Re+ort# th$s:
FBased on the analsis of data gathered and 'a.ing the +ro+er ad&$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 'ar.et -al$e of the
s$%&ect real +ro+erties is U24#444.44 +er s5$are 'eter# as of this date# Octo%er 49# 2888.F
Finding the o+inion of the Co''issioners to %e in order# this Co$rt a++ro-es the sa'e.
Accordingl# the !otion filed % Ores+ondentP Renaldo Ferrer ado+ting said -al$ation
re+ort is granted.
SO ORDERED. 8
On *an$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 7B# 7444
Order# which states that:
,he %asis of O+etitionerP in see.ing 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# O+etitionerP
in-o.ed 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 0B#444.44 +er s5.'.
onl.
B wa of o++osition# Ores+ondentP Dna'ics co$ntered that the -al$ation of a lot $nder
e"+ro+riation is rec.oned at the ti'e of its ta.ing % the go-ern'ent. And since in the
case at %ar# the writ of +ossession was iss$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 % O+etitionerP was +assed in 2889 or fo$r (1) ears
O%eforeP the lot in 5$estion was ta.en o-er % the go-ern'ent. ,his e"+lains wh the
+rice or cost of the land has considera%l increased. Besides# the -al$ation of 024#444.44
+er s5.'. was the one reco''ended % the co''issioner designated % O+etitionerP itself
and conc$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$o.
O0etitionerP s$%'its that the order of the co$rt a 5$o ado+ting the Co''issioners OsicP
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$are 'eter is e"hor%itant OsicP# highl s+ec$lati-e and witho$t an
%asis. In s$++ort thereto# O+etitionerP +resented %efore the co$rt a 5$o the 0ro-incial
A++raisal Co''ittee of Ca-ite Resol$tion No. 43/89 " " " which fi"ed the fair 'ar.et
-al$e of lots located along =en. Ag$inaldo <ighwa# Das'ariEas# Ca-ite# which
incidentall incl$des the lots s$%&ect of this +roceedings OsicP# in the a'o$nt of 0B#444.44
+er s5$are 'eter.
6e do not agree.
F,he nat$re and character of the land at the ti'e of its ta.ing is the +rinci+al criterion to
deter'ine &$st co'+ensation to the land owner.F (National 0ower Cor+oration -s.
<enson# B44 SCRA :92/:9;).
,he CA then cited Section 1# R$le ;: of the 288: R$les of Ci-il 0roced$re22 to e"+lain
wh Resol$tion No. 43/89 co$ld not F%e $sed as OaP %asis for deter'ining the &$st
co'+ensation of the s$%&ect lots# which % reason of the changed co''ercial conditions
in the -icinit# co$ld ha-e increased its -al$e greater than its -al$e three (B) ears ago.F
,he said resol$tion# which fi"ed the fair 'ar.et -al$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 (B) 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# Fthe highest and 'ost +rofita%le $se of the
+ro+ert is good for residential and co''ercial +$r+oses.F
As regards the co''issionersJ fail$re to cond$ct a hearing Fto gi-e the +arties the
o++ort$nit to +resent their res+ecti-e e-idence#F as alleged % +etitioner# the CA o+ined
that FOtPhe filing % O+etitionerP of a 'otion for reconsideration accorded it a'+le
o++ort$nit to dis+$te the findings of the co''issioners# so that O+etitionerP was as f$ll
heard as there 'ight ha-e %een hearing act$all ta.en +lace " " ".F
,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 7B# 7444 of the co$rt a 5$o are
here% 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$es are the following:
0E,I,IONER 6AS DENIED D@E 0ROCESS 6<EN I, 6AS NO, ALLO6ED ,O
0RESEN, EVIDENCE ON ,<E REASONABLE VAL@E OF ,<E EA0RO0RIA,ED
0RO0ER,H BEFORE ,<E BOARD OF CO!!ISSIONERS.
,<E VAL@A,ION OF *@S, CO!0ENSA,ION <EREIN 6AS NO, BASED FRO!
,<E EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND O,<ER A@,<EN,IC DOC@!EN,S.2B
,he Co$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 '$st
%e distinctl set forthC21th$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$se it was allegedl
de+ri-ed of the o++ort$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$se this case in-ol-es
the e"+endit$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$nit to
introd$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'+letion
or 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.LBefore entering $+on the +erfor'ance of their
d$ties# the co''issioners shall ta.e 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$ential da'ages to the
+ro+ert not ta.en and ded$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 ta.en#
the o+eration of its franchise % the cor+oration or the carring on of the %$siness of the
cor+oration or +erson ta.ing the +ro+ert. B$t in no case shall the conse5$ential %enefits
assessed e"ceed the conse5$ential da'ages assessed# or the owner %e de+ri-ed of the
act$al -al$e of his +ro+ert so ta.en.
SEC. :. Re+ort % co''issioners and &$dg'ent there$+on.L,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+ert
so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated# and 'a fro' ti'e to ti'e so deal with s$ch +ro+ert. ,he
co''issioners shall 'a.e 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+ort
and 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 shall
ser-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 $+on co''issionersJ re+ort.L@+on the e"+iration of the +eriod of ten
(24) das referred to in the +receding section# or e-en %efore the e"+iration of s$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 and
render &$dg'ent in accordance therewithC or# for ca$se shown# it 'a reco''it the sa'e
to the co''issioners for f$rther re+ort of factsC or it 'a set aside the re+ort and a++oint
new co''issionersC or it 'a acce+t the re+ort in +art and re&ect it in +artC and it 'a
'a.e s$ch order or render s$ch &$dg'ent as shall sec$re to the +laintiff the +ro+ert
essential to the e"ercise of his right of e"+ro+riation# and to the defendant &$st
co'+ensation for the +ro+ert so ta.en.
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'+ensationC and to +ro-ide the +arties the
following: (2) notice of the said hearings and the o++ort$nit to attend the'C (7) the
o++ort$nit to introd$ce e-idence in their fa-or d$ring the said hearingsC and (B) 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 ta.en 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 disregarded
and 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#
Ftrial 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.F29
In 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:
O0etitionerP# f$rther# asserts that Fthe a++ointed co''issioners failed to cond$ct a hearing
to gi-e the +arties the o++ort$nit to +resent their res+ecti-e e-idence. According to
O+etitionerP# the Co''issioners Val$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.F
6e are not +ers$aded.
,he filing % O+etitionerP of a 'otion for reconsideration accorded it a'+le o++ort$nit to
dis+$te the findings of the co''issioners# so that O+etitionerP was as f$ll heard as there
'ight ha-e %een hearing act$all ta.en +lace. FDenial of d$e +rocess cannot %e
s$ccessf$ll in-o.ed % a +art who has had the o++ort$nit to %e heard on his 'otion
for reconsideration.F (Vda. De Ch$a -s. Co$rt of A++eals# 73: SCRA BB# 94).2;
In this res+ect# we are constrained to disagree with the CA r$ling# and therefore# set it
aside.
6hile it is tr$e that there is &$ris+r$dence s$++orting the r$le that the filing of a !otion
for Reconsideration negates allegations of denial of d$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 +$r+oses and the
dis%$rse'ent of +$%lic f$nds as &$st co'+ensation for the +ri-ate +ro+ert ta.en.
,herefore# it is ins$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$ling that Fdenial of d$e +rocess cannot %e s$ccessf$ll in-o.ed
% a +art who has had the o++ort$nit to %e heard on his 'otion for reconsideration#F
citing Vda. de Ch$a -. Co$rt of A++eals# is not a++lica%le to the instant case considering
that the cited case in-ol-ed a lac. of notice of the orders of the trial co$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$rt ta.es this o++ort$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 allowed
se-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 is
rendered# 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# $nless hisRher ina%ilit to add$ce e-idence d$ring trial was d$e to
hisRher 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$are 'eter. ,he co''issioners arri-ed
at the fig$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 the
ti'e of the +re+aration of said re+ort on Octo%er 9# 2888.
In B.<. Ber.en.otter 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 %e
e"+ro+riated. ,he 'eas$re is not the ta.erJs gain %$t the ownerJs loss. ,he co'+ensation#
to %e &$st# '$st %e fair not onl to the owner %$t also to the ta.er. 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 its
o-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$ld first ascertain the 'ar.et -al$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 the
conse5$ential %enefits e"ceed the conse5$ential da'ages# these ite's sho$ld %e
disregarded altogether as the %asic -al$e of the +ro+ert sho$ld %e +aid in e-er case.
,he 'ar.et -al$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 $nli.el# a %$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 'ar.et -al$e of the +ro+ert are
the cost of ac5$isition# the c$rrent -al$e of li.e +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 ta.ing# 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.23
6e 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 &$st
co'+ensation was the co''issionersJ oc$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$s error considering that the reco''ended co'+ensation was highl
s+ec$lati-e and had no strong fact$al 'oorings. For one# the re+ort did not indicate the
fair 'ar.et -al$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 the
residential 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 Fhighest
and %est $seF 'ethod to deter'ine the &$st co'+ensation in e"+ro+riation cases. No
atte'+t was 'ade to &$stif the reco''ended F&$st +riceF in the s$%&ect re+ort thro$gh
other 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'on
of realtors in the area concerned# the fair 'ar.et -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$e# a'ong others.
!ore so# the co''issioners did not ta.e into acco$nt that the Asian financial crisis in the
second se'ester of 288: affected the fair 'ar.et -al$e of the s$%&ect lots. *$dicial notice
can %e ta.en of the fact that after the crisis hit the real estate 'ar.et# there was a
downward trend in the +rices of real estate in the co$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 was
iss$ed# and not the &$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 when
the co''issionersJ re+ort reco''ending the &$st co'+ensation was iss$ed (or al'ost
one O2P 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 &$st co'+ensation in this case is
ins$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 7B# 7444
Orders 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'ent
of 0$%lic 6or.s and <ighwas#
Res+ondent.
" // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // "
RE0@BLIC OF ,<E =.R. No. 2;42:8
0<ILI00INES#
Re+resented % the De+art'ent
of 0$%lic 6or.s and <ighwas#
0etitioner#

/ -ers$s /

BANN OF ,<E 0<ILI00INE ISLANDS#
CI,HLAND INCOR0ORA,ED#
LECA REAL,H COR0ORA,ION# and 0ro'$lgated:
LEELEN= REAL,H COR0ORA,ION#O2P
Res+ondents. Se+te'%er 7:# 744;
" // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // //"

Ional -al$ation is si'+l one of the indices of the fair 'ar.et -al$e of real estate.
B itself# howe-er# this inde" cannot %e the sole %asis of ?&$st co'+ensationS in
e"+ro+riation cases. ,he standard is not the ta.erJs gain# %$t the ownerJs loss.

,he Case


Before the Co$rt are two consolidated 0etitions:O7P the first is a 0etition for
Re-iewOBP $nder R$le 19 filed % Leca Realt Cor+orationC and the second# a s+ecial
ci-il action for certiorariO1P filed $nder R$le ;9 % the Re+$%lic of the 0hili++ines#
re+resented % the De+art'ent of 0$%lic 6or.s and <ighwas (D06<) thro$gh the
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$rt of A++eals (CA) in CA/=R CV No. ;4:B2.O9P ,he assailed
&$dg'ent affir'ed in toto the Decision dated !arch B4# 2883# iss$ed % the Regional
,rial Co$rt (R,C) of 0asig Cit# Branch 298# in SCA No. 24;B.O;P ,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 6or.s and <ighwas (D06<)# filed a co'+laint for e'inent
do'ain for the ta.ing 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 %e
affected % 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 $nderta.en % the
D06<.

?,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 'ar.et -al$es of defendantsJ +ro+erties# as follows:

V2. All lots sit$ated along Shaw Bo$le-ard fro' Edsa going
westward towards !anila $+ to Sa'at Street# that Cit# at
,<IR,H FIVE ,<O@SAND 0ESOS (0B9#444) +er s5$are
'eterO.P

V7. 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 'eterO.P

?,he +ro+ert of defendant/a++ellant Leca is a++ro"i'atel
78:.44 'eters fro' the intersection of Shaw Bo$le-ard and EDSA while
that of " " " Leeleng has an a++ro"i'ate distance of 21; 'eters fro' the
intersection of EDSA/Shaw Bo$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 while
that of B0I is a++ro"i'atel 7B: '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 wal.ing distance to S! De+art'ent Store#
within Ortigas Center.

?On Octo%er :# 288:# the co$rt a 5$o a++ointed three (B) co'+etent
and disinterested +ersonsC na'el# Att. Ben&a'in C. Angeles# !r. *oselito
E. =$nio and !r. !elchor Sa-illo as co''issioners to ascertain and
re+ort the &$st co'+ensation of the +ro+erties so$ght to %e ta.en.

?On *an$ar 8# 2883# the co''issioners s$%'itted their re+ort
dated *an$ar 3# 2883# and reco''ended the fair 'ar.et -al$e of the
s$%&ect +ro+erties as follows:

V2. 0ro+erties of Leca Realt Cor+oration and Leeleng
Realt Inc.: 094#444 +er s5.'.
V7. !etro+olitian Ban. and ,r$st Co.# Ban. of the
0hili++ine Islands: 0279#444 +er s5.'.
VB. Citland# Inc.: 02B:#944 +er s5.'. +l$s 24M corner
infl$ence# for a total of 02B:#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# identificationO#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 B4# 2883# the co$rt rendered the decision where% the
Co''issionersJ Re+ort was ado+ted.SO:P



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 'ar.et
-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.O3P

,he a++ellate co$rt li.ewise de%$n.ed the contention of the Re+$%lic of the
0hili++ines that the co''issioners had erred in fi"ing the fair 'ar.et -al$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$al 'ar.et -al$es of the
+ro+erties in the area.O8P


<ence# these 0etitions.O24P

,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 +$t in esto++el % the gross
negligenceR'ista.e of its agentRfor'er co$nselQ Is the Co$rt of
A++ealsJ Decision of Se+te'%er 79# 7447 in accord with law and
&$ris+r$denceO22P

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 %oard
of co''issioners of 094#444 +er s5$are 'eter as &$st
co'+ensation for the ta.ing of +etitioner OLecaJsP 2#72: s5$are
'eter +ro+ert at Shaw Bo$le-ard# !andal$ong Cit# while
ad&$dging other +arties whose lands were also e"+ro+riated in the
sa'e -icinit to +a'ent of 0279#444.44 +er s5$are 'eter for
!etro%an. and B0I# and 02B:#944.44 +er s5$are 'eter for Cit
Land# Inc. OorP 'ore than do$%le the -al$e fi"ed for +etitioner
OLecaJsP land.SO27P



,he Co$rtJs R$ling



,he 0etition in =R 299;49 is 'eritorio$s# while that in =R 2;42:8 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 CAC 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$t it was onl on Octo%er 74# 744B# 'ore than one
ear later# that the Re+$%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++ealOCP nor an +lain# s+eed and
ade5$ate re'ed in the ordinar co$rse of law.SO2BP ,hat action is not a s$%stit$te for a
lost a++ealC in general# it is not allowed when a +art to a case fails to a++eal a &$dg'ent
to the +ro+er for$'.O21P

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$ral de-ices (reconsideration and a++eal) were not onl a-aila%leC the wo$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.O29P International E"change Ban. -.
Co$rt of A++ealsO2;P stressed this r$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.SO2:P (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-o.es the
+rinci+le that a lawerJs gross negligence will not %ind the client.O23P ,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$rt of
A++eals.O28P In s$++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$nd %
the 'ista.es of their co$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$le that the go-ern'ent cannot %e esto++ed % the
'ista.es or errors of its agent is not witho$t e"ce+tions. In Re+$%lic of the 0hili++ines -.
= <oldings#O74P this Co$rt held th$s:

?6hile the Re+$%lic or the go-ern'ent is $s$all not esto++ed %
the 'ista.e or error on the +art of its officials or agents# the Re+$%lic
cannot now ta.e ref$ge in the r$le as it does not afford a %lan.et or a%sol$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$sed fro' its shortco'ings
% in-o.ing the doctrine as if it were so'e 'agic incantation that co$ld
%enignl# if ar%itraril# condone and erase its errors.S


,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$nd if late +etitions# li.e
the +resent one# are allowed on the fli's e"c$se that the attending lawer was grossl
lac.ing 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 7B# 7447.O72P Accordingl# the entr of &$dg'ent
was ordered % the CA in its Resol$tion dated *$l 79# 744B.O77P

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$>. O7BP
Neither was e-idence add$ced to show the +artici+ation in the case of Solicitor Elin>ano#
+artic$larl as the attending co$nsel of the Re+$%lic.
,hird# we are hard/+ressed in a++reciating the so/called ?gra-e in&$sticeS 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'$lgated on !arch B4# 2883 % the R,C# National
Ca+ital *$dicial Region# 0asig Cit# Branch 298.SO71P

,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$rt in the a%o-e/'entioned
Decision are reasona%le and acce+ta%leSC and that the ?'o-e will hasten the legal
+rocess# there% shorten the ti'e of the +roceedings and sto+ the r$nning of interest in
the a'o$nt0;#714#444.44 +er ann$'.SO79P ,he sa'e re5$est was reiterated in a second
letter dated A$g$st 23# 2883# stating that ?the 'ar.et -al$es reco''ended % the
co''issioners are OfPair and reflecti-e -al$es +re-ailing in the area.SO7;P
,he D06< is the 'ain go-ern'ent agenc tas.ed to i'+le'ent the e"+ro+riation
and s$%se5$ent constr$ction of the EDSA/Shaw Bo$le-ard O-er+ass +ro&ect. ,h$s# its
&$dg'ent on this 'atter is i'+ossi%le to ignoreC 5$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= see.s 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.O7:P 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.O73P ,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$fficient e-idence.
!oreo-er# the were allegedl %ased on news+a+er listings of ad-ertise'ents#O78P
which the co''issioners dee'ed to %e reasona%le indices of the fair 'ar.et -al$e.
F$rther# 'ere offers of sale // not cons$''ated transactions // were these listed ite's#
sa-e for one#OB4P 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$e
# within Ortigas Center# 0asig Cit# !etro+olitan !anila was
offered for sale thro$gh the !anila B$lletin at an as.ing +rice of 0723#444
+er s5$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 as.ing +rice of 0BB4#444 +er s5$are
'eter.

?B. 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$lletin at an as.ing +rice of 0744#444
+er s5$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# was
offered for sale thro$gh the !anila B$lletin at an as.ing +rice of 774#444
+er s5$are 'eter.S


,he Re-ised Ional 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 'ar.et -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.OB2P =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.OB7P

Leca# on the other hand# alleges that the fair 'ar.et -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$e consideration to
the Ional Val$e ,a%le of the B$rea$ of Internal Re-en$e.OBBP 6orse# the CA totall
ignored the Fair !ar.et Val$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#OB1P had +laced the -al$e of
LecaJs +ro+ert at 0:4#444 +er s5$are 'eter.

In e"+ro+riation +roceedings in general# the 'ar.et -al$e is the &$st co'+ensation
to which the owner of a conde'ned +ro+ert is entitled. !ore +recisel# 'ar.et -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.SOB9P

Re+$%lic -. Co$rt of A++ealsOB;P r$led in this wise:

?,he constit$tional li'itation of &$st Vco'+ensationJ is considered
to %e the s$' e5$i-alent of the 'ar.et -al$e of the +ro+ert# %roadl
descri%ed to %e the +rice fi"ed % the seller in o+en 'ar.et 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"ed
at the ti'e of the act$al ta.ing % the go-ern'ent.SOB:P
*$st co'+ensation# then# is the f$ll and fair e5$i-alent of a +ro+ert ta.en fro' its
owner % the e"+ro+riator. ,he 'eas$re is not the ta.erJs gain# %$t the ownerJs loss. Note
'$st %e ta.en that the word ?&$stS is $sed to stress the 'eaning of the word
?co'+ensation#S in order to con-e the idea that the e5$i-alent to %e rendered for the
+ro+ert to %e ta.en shall %e real# s$%stantial# f$ll and a'+le.OB3P

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 $se of the so/called 'ar.et/data a++roach in arri-ing at the -al$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 as.ing +rices. B their -er nat$re# the are
s$%&ect to negotiations in which a %$er 'a as. for a lower +riceC $nderstanda%l# it is
c$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
'$st %e deter'ined either as of the date of the ta.ing of the +ro+ert or the filing of the
co'+laint# whiche-er co'es first.OB8P In this case# the Co'+laint was filed on !arch
23# 288;# and the trial co$rt iss$ed the 6rit of 0ossession on *$ne 28# 288:.O14P ,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$s# there
is no e-idence on record of the fair 'ar.et -al$e of the +ro+ert as of !arch 288;.

!oreo-er# the offers for sale were good for +ro+erties inside the Ortigas Center.
O12P ,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 'ar.et -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$e of a realt.O17P National 0ower Cor+oration -.
!an$%a Agro/Ind$strial held th$s:

?" " " O!ar.et -al$eP is not li'ited to the assessed -al$e of the
+ro+ert or to the sched$le of 'ar.et -al$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$ation of the +ro+ert.SO1BP
,he a%o-e r$ling finds s$++ort in E0IA -. D$laO11P 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 $nifor' for -er wide areas co-ering se-eral %arrios
or e-en an entire town with the e"ce+tion of the +o%lacion. Indi-id$al
differences are ne-er ta.en 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$ts or other
cro+s. Ver often land descri%ed as VcogonalJ has %een c$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$rate than
correct. ,a" -al$es can ser-e as g$ides %$t cannot %e a%sol$te s$%stit$tes
for &$st co'+ensation.SO19P (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.O1;P

In National 0ower Cor+oration -. !an$%a Agro/Ind$strial De-elo+'ent
Cor+oration#O1:P the reco''ended +rice of the cit assessor was re&ected % this Co$rt.
,he o+inions of the %an.s and the realtors# as reflected in the co'+$tation of the 'ar.et
-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 'ar.et -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$t
considering the factors to %e a++reciated in arri-ing at the fair 'ar.et
-al$e of the +ro+erte.g.# the cost of ac5$isition# the c$rrent -al$e of li.e
+ro+erties# its si>e# sha+e# location# as well as the ta" declarations thereon.
Since these factors were not considered# a re'and of the case for
deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation is necessar. " " ".SO13P


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+$%lic in =R No. 2;42:8 is DIS!ISSED#
while that of Leca Realt Cor+oration is RE!ANDED to the trial co$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'+ensationS for
LecaJs +ro+ert within si" 'onths fro' its recei+t of this DecisionC 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. ;4:B2 is
SE, ASIDE. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

=.R. No. 2142;4 *an$ar 2B# 7441
LAND BANN OF ,<E 0<ILI00INES# +etitioner#
-s.
FELICIANO F. 6HCOCO# res+ondent.
" / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / "
=.R. No. 21;:BB *an$ar 2B# 7441
FELICIANO F. 6HCOCO# +etitioner#
-s.
,<E <ONORABLE RODRI=O S. CAS0ILLO# 0airing *$dge of the Regional ,rial
Co$rt# ,hird *$dicial Region# Branch 7B# Ca%anat$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$rt are consolidated +etitions# the first see.ing the re-iew of the Fe%r$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. B882B# which 'odified the DecisionB of Regional ,rial Co$rt of
Ca%anat$an Cit# Branch 7B# acting as a S+ecial Agrarian Co$rt in Agrarian Case No. 82
(AF)C and the second for 'anda'$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 a
81.2;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.1
In 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 &$st co'+ensation % the Land Ban. of the 0hili++ines (LB0)# a
notice of intention to ac5$ire 31.9;84 hectares of the +ro+ert for 02#B17#;;:.1;; was
sent to 6coco. ,he a'o$nt offered was later raised to 07#981#419.B8 and# $+on re-iew#
was 'odified to 07#734#298.37.: ,he area which the DAR offered to ac5$ire e"cl$ded
idle lands# ri-er and road located therein. 6coco re&ected the offer# +ro'+ting the DAR
to indorse the case to the De+art'ent of Agrarian Refor' Ad&$dication Board (DARAB)
for the +$r+ose of fi"ing the &$st co'+ensation in a s$''ar ad'inistrati-e +roceeding.3
,he case was doc.eted as DARAB VOS Case No. 7B7 NE 8B. ,hereafter# the DARAB
re5$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%$ted to far'er/
%eneficiaries.
On !arch 78# 288B# DARAB re5$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 with
the filing of the re5$ired +leadings# and instead filed on A+ril 2B# 288B# the instant case
for deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation with the Regional ,rial Co$rt of Ca%anat$an Cit#
Branch 7B# doc.eted as Agrarian Case No. 82 (AF).22 I'+leaded as +art/defendants
therein were DAR and LB0.
On A+ril B4# 288B# 6coco filed a 'anifestation in VOS Case No. 7B7 NE 8B# 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. O<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 &$st co'+ensation to the S+ecial
Agrarian Co$rt for final deter'ination.
6<EREFORE# +re'ises considered# this case is here% dis'issed.
SO ORDERED.2B
!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 in
accordance 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$cting a +re/trial on Octo%er B# 2881# the trial co$rt iss$ed a +re/trial order as
follows:
,he +arties 'anifested that there is no +ossi%ilit of a'ica%le settle'ent# neither are the
willing to ad'it or sti+$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$s 'e'oranda# and another ten (24) das fro' recei+t thereof to file their
Re+lRRe&oinder# if an# and thereafter# this case shall %e dee'ed s$%'itted for decision.
SO ORDERED.29
,he e-idence +resented % 6coco in s$++ort of his clai' were the following: (2)
,ransfer Certificate of ,itle No. N,/74;177C (7) Notice of Land Val$ation dated *$ne 23#
2887C and (B) letter dated *$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 6or.sheets.2:
On 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 'ar.et -al$e of agric$lt$ral lands sold in Lica%#
N$e-a Eci&a is fro' 02B9#444.44 to 294#444.44 +er hectare. ,he co$rt th$s too. &$dicial
notice thereof and fi"ed the co'+ensation for the entire 81.2;84 hectare land at
0217#944.44 +er hectare or a total of 02B#173#437.44. It also awarded 6coco act$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 02B#128#437.44 to +laintiff as &$st
co'+ensation for the +ro+ert ac5$iredC
7. Ordering the defendants to +a +laintiff the a'o$nt of 078#;;B#7B9.44 re+resenting the
$nreali>ed +rofits fro' the ti'e of ac5$isition of the s$%&ect +ro+ert and the s$' of
03#1:9#724.44 for e-er calendar ear# $ntil the a'o$nt of co'+ensation is f$ll +aid
incl$ding legal interest which had accr$ed thereon.
No +rono$nce'ent as to costs.
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$es# doc.eted as CA/=.R. No. S0
No. B87B1# was dis'issed on !a 78# 288:.28,he dis'issal %eca'e final and e"ec$tor
on *$ne 7;# 288:.74 ,his +ro'+ted 6coco to file a +etition for 'anda'$s %efore this
Co$rt# doc.eted as =.R. No. 21;:BB# +raing that the decision of the Regional ,rial Co$rt
of Ca%anat$an Cit# Branch 7B# in Agrarian Case No. 82 (AF) %e e"ec$ted# and that *$dge
Rodrigo S. Cas+illo# the now +residing *$dge of said co$rt# %e co'+elled to inhi%it
hi'self fro' hearing the case.
,he +etition %ro$ght % LB0 on %oth s$%stanti-e and +roced$ral gro$nds# doc.eted as
CA/=.R. No. S0 No. B882B# was li.ewise dis'issed % the Co$rt of A++eals on Fe%r$ar
8# 2888.72 On Se+te'%er 77# 2888# howe-er# the Co$rt of A++eals 'odified its decision
% ded$cting fro' the co'+ensation d$e 6coco the a'o$nt corres+onding to the
B.B;:7 hectare +ortion of the 81.2;84 hectare land which was fo$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 B.B;:7
hectares and all the awards a++ertaining thereto in the decision a 5$o are ordered
ded$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$ling:
I
,<A, ,<E ,RIAL CO@R, AC,IN= AS A S0ECIAL A=RARIAN CO@R, !AH
ASS@!E *@RISDIC,ION OVER A=RARIAN CASE NO. 82 (AF) AND RENDER
*@D=!EN, ,<EREON 6I,<O@, AN INI,IAL AD!INIS,RA,IVE
DE,ER!INA,ION OF *@S, CO!0ENSA,ION BH ,<E DARAB 0@RS@AN, ,O
SEC,ION 2; OF RA ;;9:# OVER ,<E ,I!ELH OB*EC,ION OF ,<E 0E,I,IONER#
AND IN VIOLA,ION OF ,<E R@LE ON EA<A@S,ION OF AD!INIS,RA,IVE
RE!EDIES AND ON FOR@! S<O00IN=C
II
,<A, ,<E *@S, CO!0ENSA,ION DE,ER!INED BH ,<E ,RIAL CO@R, 6AS
S@00OR,ED BH S@BS,AN,IAL EVIDENCE# 6<EN I, 6AS BASED ONLH ON
*@DICIAL NO,ICE OF ,<E 0REVAILIN= !ARNE, VAL@E OF LAND BASED ON
,<E ALLE=ED 0RICE OF ,RANSFER OF ,EN@RAL RI=<,S# ,ANEN 6I,<O@,
NO,ICE AND <EARIN= IN VIOLA,ION OF R@LE 278 OF ,<E R@LES OF
CO@R,C
III
,<A, ,<E ,RIAL CO@R, CAN REK@IRE ,<E 0E,I,IONER ,O CO!0ENSA,E
,<E 0OR,IONS OF RES0ONDEN,JS 0RO0ER,H 6<IC< 6ERE NO, DECLARED
BH ,<E DAR FOR ACK@ISI,ION# NOR S@I,ABLE FOR A=RIC@L,@RE NOR
CA0ABLE OF DIS,RIB@,ION ,O FAR!ER BENEFICIARIES @NDER ,<E CAR0C
IV
,<A, ,<E ,RIAL CO@R, CAN A6ARD AS 0AR, OF *@S, CO!0ENSA,ION
LE=AL IN,ERES, ON ,<E 0RINCI0AL AND ALLE=ED @NREALIIED 0ROFI,S
OF 078#;;B#7B9.44 FRO! ,<E ,I!E OF ACK@ISI,ION OF ,<E S@B*EC,
0RO0ER,H AND 03#1:9#724.44 FOR EVERH CALENDAR HEAR ,<EREAF,ER#
CONSIDERIN= ,<A, ,<E SA!E <AS NO LE=AL BASIS AND ,<A, ,<E
RES0ONDEN, RE,AINED ,<E ,I,LE ,O <IS 0RO0ER,H DES0I,E ,<E DARJS
NO,ICE OF ACK@ISI,IONC
V
,<A, ,<E ,RIAL CO@R, <AD VALIDLH =RAN,ED EAEC@,ION 0ENDIN=
A00EAL ON ,<E ALLE=EDLH =OOD REASON OF ,<E 0E,I,IONERJS
ADVANCED A=E AND 6EAN <EAL,<# CON,RARH ,O ,<E A00LICABLE
*@RIS0R@DENCE AND CONSIDERIN= ,<A, ,<E RES0ONDEN, IS NO,
DES,I,@,E.7B
,he iss$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 (B) 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 (B4) 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-en
original and e"cl$si-e &$risdiction o-er two categories of cases# to wit: (2) all +etitions for
the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensationC and (7) the +rosec$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'inal
cases. ,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$le AIII# Section 22 of the New R$les of 0roced$re
of the DARAB ac.nowledges this +ower of the co$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$ation and +reli'inar
deter'ination and +a'ent of &$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 ta.ing.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$re. ,he LB0 li.ewise re-iews the a++lication
and the s$++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$isition# where the landowner re&ects the offer# the DAR o+ens an acco$nt
in 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.7:
In 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+erl
ac5$ired &$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 Foriginal
and e"cl$si-e &$risdiction o-er all +etitions for the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation to
landowners.F ,his Foriginal and e"cl$si-eF &$risdiction of the R,C wo$ld %e $nder'ined
if the DAR wo$ld -est in ad'inistrati-e officials original &$risdiction in co'+ensation
cases and 'a.e the R,C an a++ellate co$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 OS+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 &$st co'+ensation
esto++ed the' fro' 5$estioning the &$risdiction of the s+ecial agrarian co$rt. ,he +re/
trial order li'ited the iss$es to those not dis+osed of % ad'ission or agree'entsC and the
entr thereof controlled the s$%se5$ent co$rse of action.B4
Besides# the iss$e of whether 6coco -iolated the r$le on e"ha$stion of ad'inistrati-e
re'edies was rendered 'oot and acade'ic in -iew of the DARABJs dis'issalB2 of the
ad'inistrati-e case to gi-e wa to and in recognition of the co$rtJs +ower to deter'ine
&$st co'+ensation.B7
In arri-ing at the -al$ation of 6cocoJs land# the trial co$rt too. &$dicial notice of the
alleged +re-ailing 'ar.et -al$e of agric$lt$ral lands in Lica%# N$e-a Eci&a witho$t
a++rising the +arties of its intention to ta.e &$dicial notice thereof. Section B# R$le 278 of
the R$les on E-idence +ro-ides:
Sec. B. *$dicial Notice# 6hen <earing Necessar. T D$ring the trial# the co$rt# on its own
initiati-e# or on re5$est of a +art# 'a anno$nce its intention to ta.e &$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$est of a +art# 'a ta.e &$dicial notice of an 'atter and allow the +arties to %e heard
thereon 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 'ar.et -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$t
considering the factors to %e a++reciated in arri-ing at the fair 'ar.et -al$e of the
+ro+ert e.g.# the cost of ac5$isition# the c$rrent -al$e of li.e +ro+erties# its si>e# sha+e#
location# as well as the ta" declarations thereon.BB Since these factors were not
considered# a re'and of the case for deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation is necessar. ,he
+ower to ta.e &$dicial notice is to %e e"ercised % co$rts with ca$tion es+eciall where
the case in-ol-es a -ast tract of land. Care '$st %e ta.en that the re5$isite notoriet
e"istsC and e-er reasona%le do$%t on the s$%&ect sho$ld %e +ro'+tl resol-ed in the
negati-e. ,o sa that a co$rt will ta.e &$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 not
a$thori>ed to 'a.e his indi-id$al .nowledge of a fact# not generall or +rofessionall
.nown# the %asis of his action.B1
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$rt of A++eals#B9 this Co$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:.
FIt is -er e"+licit Wfro' OSection 2; (e)P that the de+osit '$st %e 'ade onl in VcashJ or
in VLB0 %onds.J Nowhere does it a++ear nor can it %e inferred that the de+osit can %e
'ade in an other for'. If it were the intention to incl$de a Vtr$st acco$ntJ a'ong the
-alid 'odes of de+osit# that sho$ld ha-e %een 'ade e"+ress# or at least# 5$alifing words
o$ght to ha-e a++eared fro' which it can %e fairl ded$ced that a Vtr$st acco$ntJ is
allowed. In s$'# there is no a'%ig$it in Section 2;(e) of RA ;;9: to warrant an
e"+anded constr$ction of the ter' Vde+osit.J
" " " " " " " " "
FIn the +resent s$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 '$st %e 'ade onl in VcashJ or in VLB0 %onds.J In the sa'e -ein#
+etitioners cannot in-o.e LRA Circ$lar Nos. 78# 78/A and 91 %eca$se these
i'+le'enting reg$lations can not o$tweigh the clear +ro-ision of the law. Res+ondent
co$rt therefore did not co''it an error in stri.ing down Ad'inistrati-e Circ$lar No. 8
for %eing n$ll and -oid.FB;
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$ant to Ad'inistrati-e Order No. 2# S. 288B co-ering
landholdings not et transferred in the na'e of the Re+$%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 landowners
concerned.
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$est of the
DAR in order that the sa'e 'a %e re+laced with a new one.
All +re-io$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 li.ewise %e con-erted to
de+osits in cash and in %onds. ,he B$rea$ of Land Ac5$isition and Distri%$tion shall
coordinate 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$ch
con-ersion sho$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 the
0hili++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$ld %e -iolated.B: ,he interest
earnings accr$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
'a.es the o%ligation on the +art of the go-ern'ent one of for%earance.B3 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'+ensationC for essentiall# the deter'ination of this co'+ensation was 'arred %
lac. of d$e +rocess.B8
Accordingl# the &$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 27M
interest 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 ta.ing 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 +resented
in 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'$s in =.R.
No. 21;:BB sho$ld %e dis'issed. ,he decision of the Regional ,rial Co$rt of Ca%anat$an
Cit# Branch 7B# 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. Li.ewise# 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$an Cit# Branch 7B# for the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation.
,he +etition for 'anda'$s in =.R. No. 21;:BB is dis'issed.
SO ORDERED.
CI,H OF !ANILA# +etitioner# -s. OSCAR# FELICI,AS# *OSE# BEN*A!IN#
ES,ELI,A# LEONORA# and ADELAIDA# all s$rna'ed SERRANO#
res+ondents.
D E C I S I O N
!ENDOIA# *.:
,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 7B# 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$all
en&oining it fro' +roceeding with +etitionerJs co'+laint for e'inent do'ain in Ci-il
Case No. 81/:7737.
,he facts are as follows:
On Dece'%er 72# 288B# the Cit Co$ncil of !anila enacted Ordinance No. :3BB#
a$thori>ing the e"+ro+riation of certain +ro+erties in !anilaJs First District in ,ondo#
co-ered % ,C, Nos. :43;8# 249742# 249747# and 2B37:B of the Register of Deeds of
!anila# which are to %e sold and distri%$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$ght to %e e"+ro+riated# deno'inated as Lot 2/C# consists of
B1B.24 s5$are 'eters. It is co-ered % ,C, No. 2B37:7 which was deri-ed fro' ,C,
No. :43;8 iss$ed in the na'e of Feli>a De =$ia.O2P 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 9B# !anila in its decision# dated !a
3# 283;.O7P 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 =$ia.OBP On A+ril 29# 2881# Edgardo De =$ia was iss$ed ,C, No.
72998B# co-ering Lot 2/C.O1P On *$l 78# 2881# the said +ro+ert was transferred to Lee
N$an <$i# in whose na'e ,C, No. 72:423 was iss$ed.O9P
,he +ro+ert was s$%se5$entl sold on *an$ar 71# 288; to De'etria De =$ia to
who' ,C, No. 77;413 was iss$ed.O;P
On Se+te'%er 7;# 288:# +etitioner Cit of !anila filed an a'ended co'+laint for
e"+ro+riation# doc.eted 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$ding Lot 2/C)# 249742# 249747# and 2B37:B# which incl$ded herein res+ondents
Oscar# Felicitas# *ose# Ben&a'in# Estelita# Leonora# Adelaida# all s$rna'ed Serrano.O:P
On No-e'%er 27# 288:# res+ondents filed a consolidated answer# in which the alleged
that their 'other# the late De'etria De =$ia# had ac5$ired Lot 2/C fro' Lee Nian <$iC
that the had %een the %ona fide occ$+ants of the said +arcel of land for 'ore than 14
earsC that the e"+ro+riation of Lot 2/C wo$ld res$lt in their dislocation# it %eing the onl
residential land left to the' % their deceased 'otherC and that the said lot was e"e'+t
fro' e"+ro+riation %eca$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#O3P regarding the
+endenc of Ci-il Case No. 81/:7737 for e'inent do'ain filed % +etitioner.O8P
@+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$e of the +ro+erties.O24P After +etitioner had 'ade the de+osit# the trial co$rt iss$ed
another order# dated Dece'%er 29# 2883# directing the iss$ance of a writ of +ossession in
fa-or of +etitioner.O22P
Res+ondents filed a +etition for certiorari with the Co$rt of A++eals# alleging that the
e"+ro+riation of Lot 2/C wo$ld render res+ondents# who are act$al occ$+ants thereof#
landlessC that Lot 2/C is e"e'+t fro' e"+ro+riation %eca$se R.A. No. :7:8 +ro-ides that
+ro+erties consisting of residential lands not e"ceeding B44 s5$are 'eters in highl
$r%ani>ed cities are e"e'+t fro' e"+ro+riationC that res+ondents wo$ld onl recei-e
aro$nd 18 s5$are 'eters each after the +artition of Lot 2/C which consists of onl B1B.24
s5$are 'etersC and that R.A. No. :7:8 was not 'eant to de+ri-e an owner of the entire
residential land %$t onl that in e"cess of B44 s5$are 'eters.O27P
On No-e'%er 2;# 2888# the Co$rt of A++eals rendered a decision holding that Lot 2/
C is not e"e'+t fro' e"+ro+riation %eca$se it $ndenia%l e"ceeds B44 s5$are 'eters
which is no longer considered a s'all +ro+ert within the fra'ewor. of R.A. No. :7:8.
<owe-er# it held that in accordance with the r$ling inFilstrea' International Inc. -. Co$rt
of A++eals#O2BP 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 &$dg'ent for
res+ondents and en&oined +etitioner fro' e"+ro+riating Lot 2/C. ,he dis+ositi-e +ortion
of its decision reads:
6<EREFORE# in -iew of all the foregoing# the instant +etition is here% =IVEN D@E
CO@RSE and accordingl =RAN,ED. ,he Order# dated Dece'%er 29# 2883# dening
+etitionersJ 'otion for reconsideration iss$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$rt fro'
+roceeding with the co'+laint for e'inent do'ain in Ci-il Case No. 81/:7737.O21P
In its resol$tion# dated Fe%r$ar 7B# 7444# the Co$rt of A++eals li.ewise denied two
'otions for reconsideration filed % +etitioner.O29P <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 its
own declaration of the i'+ro+riet of the resort to the writ and filing thereof with the
wrong a++ellate co$rtC
7) Concl$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 $+on the
de+osit of the +ro-isionall fi"ed fair 'ar.et -al$e thereof as tanta'o$nt to
conde'nation of the +ro+ert witho$t +rior showing of co'+liance with the ac5$isition
of other lands en$'erated in Sec. 8 of R.A. :7:8 ergo a -iolation of d$e +rocess to the
Serranos % the doctrinaire a++lication of FILS,REA! r$ling and corrollaril#
B) 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.O2;P
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.
O2:P
,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$ld %e ta.en. R$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 the
Regional ,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 has
acted 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$rt had
acted witho$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 in
fa-or of +etitioner.O23P
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$estion of whether or not there was co'+liance with XX8 and
24 of R.A. No. :7:8. It arg$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+ertS as defined %
R.A. No. :7:8. Accordingl# the Co$rt of A++eals sho$ld not ha-e a++lied the doctrine
laid down % this Co$rt in the Filstrea'O28P case as s$ch iss$e was not raised %
res+ondents in their +etition %efore the Co$rt of A++eals.
,his contention li.ewise 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$%&ect Lot 2/C with an area of B1B.24 s5$are 'eters
co-ered % ,.C.,. No. 77;413 in the na'e of +etitionersJ 'other# the late
De'etria ODe =$iaP Serrano# 'a %e lawf$ll e"+ro+riated ?for the +$%lic
+$r+ose of +ro-iding landless occ$+ants thereof ho'elots of their own $nder
the ?land/for/the/landless +rogra' of res+ondent Cit of !anila.S
7. 6hether or not the e"+ro+riation of the said Lot 2/C % res+ondent Cit of
!anila -iolates the e5$al +rotection cla$se of the Constit$tion# since
+etitioners# with the e"ce+tion of +etitioner Oscar =. Serrano# who are
li.ewise landless are act$al occ$+ants hereof.
B. 6hether or not Lot 2/C is or 'a %e e"e'+ted fro' e"+ro+riation +$rs$ant
to R.A. :7:8# otherwise .nown as the @r%an De-elo+'ent and <o$sing Act
of 2887.O74P
It is clear that res+ondents raised in iss$e the +ro+riet of the e"+ro+riation of their
+ro+ert in connection with R.A. No. :7:8. 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 $nder the said law# the
other +ro-isions of the said law concerning e"+ro+riation +roceedings need also %e
loo.ed into to address the first iss$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$rt of A++eals
+ro+erl considered rele-ant +ro-isions of R.A. No. :7:8 to deter'ine the iss$es raised
% res+ondents. 6hether or not it correctl a++lied the doctrine laid down in Filstrea' in
resol-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 trial
co$rt# dated Dece'%er 29# 2883# 'erel a$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. :7:8# XX8/24 ha-e %een
co'+lied with since no e-identiar hearing had et %een cond$cted % the trial co$rt. O72P

,his contention is well ta.en. 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 ta.e 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# $nless in
lie$ 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$e shall %e +ro-isionall ascertained and the
a'o$nt to %e de+osited shall %e fi"ed % the co$rt.
After s$ch de+osit is 'ade the co$rt shall order the sheriff or other +ro+er officer to
forthwith +lace the +laintiff in +ossession of the +ro+ert in-ol-ed and +ro'+tl s$%'it a
re+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$ance of the writ of
+ossession %eco'es 'inisterial.O77P In this case# these re5$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. :7:8 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 &$dg'ent in that case had
alread %eco'e final. In this case# the trial co$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. :7:8. 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.
R.A. No. :7:8 in +ertinent +arts +ro-ide:
SEC. 8. 0riorities in the Ac5$isition of Land./// Lands for sociali>ed ho$sing shall %e
ac5$ired in the following order:
(a) ,hose owned % the =o-ern'ent or an of its s$%di-isions# instr$'entalities# or
agencies# incl$ding go-ern'ent/owned and controlled cor+orations and their
s$%sidiariesC
(%) Aliena%le lands of the +$%lic do'ainC
(c) @nregistered or a%andoned and idle landsC
(d) ,hose within the declared Areas or 0riorit De-elo+'ent# Ional I'+ro-e'ent
0rogra' sites# and Sl$' I'+ro-e'ent and Resettle'ent 0rogra' sites which ha-e not
et %een ac5$iredC
(e) Bagong Li+$nan I'+ro-e'ent of Sites and Ser-ices or BLISS sites which ha-e not
et %een ac5$iredC and
(f) 0ri-atel/owned lands.
6here on/site de-elo+'ent is fo$nd 'ore +ractica%le and ad-antageo$s to the
%eneficiaries# the +riorities 'entioned in this section shall not a++l. the local
go-ern'ent $nits shall gi-e %$dgetar +riorit to on/site de-elo+'ent of go-ern'ent
lands.
SEC. 24. !odes for Land Ac5$isition./// ,he 'odes of ac5$iring lands for +$r+oses of
this Act shall incl$de# a'o$nt others# co''$nit 'ortgage# land swa++ing# land
asse'%l or consolidation# land %an.ing# donation to the =o-ern'ent# &oint/-ent$re
agree'ent# negotiated +$rchase# and e"+ro+riation: 0ro-ided# howe-er#,hat e"+ro+riation
shall %e resorted to onl when other 'odes of ac5$isition ha-e %een e"ha$sted: 0ro-ided#
f$rther# ,hat where e"+ro+riation is resorted to# +arcels of land owned % s'all +ro+ert
owners shall %e e"e'+ted for +$r+oses of this Act: 0ro-ided# finall# ,hat a%andoned
+ro+ert# as herein defined# shall %e re-erted and escheated to the State in a +roceeding
analogo$s to the +roced$re laid down in R$le 82 of the R$les of Co$rt.
For the +$r+ose of sociali>ed ho$sing# go-ern'ent/owned and foreclosed +ro+erties shall
%e ac5$ired % the local go-ern'ent $nits# or % the National <o$sing A$thorit
+ri'aril thro$gh negotiated +$rchase: 0ro-ided# ,hat 5$alified %eneficiaries who are
act$al occ$+ants of the land shall %e gi-en the right of first ref$sal.
6hether +etitioner has co'+lied with these +ro-isions re5$ires the +resentation of
e-idence# altho$gh in its a'ended co'+laint +etitioner did allege that it had co'+lied
with the re5$ire'ents.O7BP ,he deter'ination of this 5$estion '$st await the hearing on
the co'+laint for e"+ro+riation# +artic$larl the hearing for the conde'nation of the
+ro+erties so$ght to %e e"+ro+riated. E"+ro+riation +roceedings consists of two stages:
first# conde'nation of the +ro+ert after it is deter'ined that its ac5$isition will %e for a
+$%lic +$r+ose or +$%lic $se and# second# the deter'ination of &$st co'+ensation to %e
+aid for the ta.ing of +ri-ate +ro+ert to %e 'ade % the co$rt with the assistance of not
'ore than three co''issioners.O71P
6<EREFORE# the decision# dated No-e'%er 2;# 2888# and resol$tion# dated
Fe%r$ar 7B# 7444# of the Co$rt of A++eals are REVERSED and the order of the trial
co$rt# dated Dece'%er 29# 2883# is REINS,A,ED. ,his case is RE!ANDED to the trial
co$rt for f$rther +roceedings.
SO ORDERED.
RE0@BLIC VS. =IN=OHON# digested
=R Z 2;;178# Dece'%er 28# 7449 (Constit$tional Law T E'inent Do'ain#
E"+ro+riation# *$st Co'+ensation)
FAC,S: NAIA B# a +ro&ect %etween the =o-ern'ent and the 0hili++ine International Air
,er'inals Co.# Inc (0IA,CO) was n$llified.
0lanning to +$t NAIA B facilities into i''ediate o+eration# the =o-ern'ent# thro$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. 38:1 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 latest
e"+ro+riation law (RA No. 38:1).
CI,H OF BA=@IO V. NA6ASA O24; 0hilC =.R. No. L/274B7C B2 A$g 2898P
Sat$rda# *an$ar B2# 7448 0osted % Coffeeholic 6rites
La%els: Case Digests # 0olitical Law
Facts: 0laintiff a '$nici+al cor+oration filed a co'+laint against defendant a +$%lic
cor+oration# created $nder Act.2B3B. It contends that the said act does not incl$de within
its +$r-iew the Bag$io 6ater 6or.s sste'# ass$'ing that it does# is $nconstit$tional
%eca$se it de+ri-es the +laintiff ownershi+# control and o+eration of said water wor.s
witho$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$rt holds that the water wor.s sste' of Bag$io %elongs to +ri-ate +ro+ert and cannot
%e e"+ro+riated witho$t &$st co'+ensation. Sec. 3 of R.A.2B3B +ro-ides for the e"change
of the NA6ASA assets for the -al$e of the water wor.s sste' of Bag$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. 2B3B does not constit$te a -alid e"ercise of +olice +ower. ,he act does not
confiscate# destro or a++ro+riate +ro+ert %elonging to a '$nici+al cor+oration. It
'erel directs that all water wor.s %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$io water wor.s sste' is not li.e a +$%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 wor.s cannot %e ta.en awa e"ce+t for +$%lic
$se and $+on +a'ent of &$st co'+ensation. *$dg'ent affir'ed.
Ia'%oanga Del Norte -s. Ia'%oanga Cit
Doctrine: In the case of state +ro+erties# +ro+erties for +$%lic ser-ice are of +$%lic
do'inionC this is not so in the case of +ro-inces# cities# etc.# said +ro+erties for +$%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 Ia'%oanga $sed
to %e the +ro-incial ca+ital of the then Ia'%oanga 0ro-ince. On Octo%er 27# 28B;#
Co''onwealth Act B8 was a++ro-ed con-erting the !$nici+alit of Ia'%oanga into
Ia'%oanga Cit.
Sec. 94 of the said Act also +ro-ided that LB$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 Ia'%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 Ia'%oanga and co-ered indi-id$all %
,orrens certificates of title in the na'e of Ia'%oanga 0ro-ince.
It a++ears that in 2819# the ca+ital of Ia'%oanga 0ro-ince was transferred to Di+olog.
S$%se5$entl# Re+$%lic Act 73; was a++ro-ed. creating the '$nici+alit of !ola-e and
'a.ing it the ca+ital of Ia'%oanga 0ro-ince.
Re+$%lic Act :22 was a++ro-ed di-iding the +ro-ince of Ia'%oanga into two (7):
Ia'%oanga del Norte and Ia'%oanga del S$r.
,he A$ditor =eneral# a++ortioned the assets and o%ligations of the def$nct 0ro-ince of
Ia'%oanga as follows: 91.B8M for Ia'%oanga del Norte and 19.;2M for Ia'%oanga del
S$r.
,he E"ec$ti-e Secretar# % order of the 0resident# iss$ed a r$ling holding that
Ia'%oanga del Norte had a -ested right as owner (sho$ld %e co/owner +ro/indi-iso) of
the +ro+erties 'entioned in Sec. 94 of Co''onwealth Act B8# and is entitled to the +rice
thereof# +aa%le % Ia'%oanga Cit. ,his r$ling re-o.ed the +re-io$s Ca%inet
Resol$tion con-eing all the said 94 lots and %$ildings thereon to Ia'%oanga Cit for
02.44# effecti-e as of 2819# when the +ro-incial ca+ital of the then Ia'%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$ld %e
considered as +atri'onial +ro+erties of the for'er Ia'%oanga +ro-ince. E-en the ca+ital
site# the hos+ital and le+rosari$' 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 wor.s for +$%lic
ser-iceS for it has %een held that $nder the e&$sde' generis r$le# s$ch +$%lic wor.s '$st
%e for free and indiscri'inate $se % anone# &$st li.e 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
+$%lic ser-ice are dee'ed +$%licC 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
+$r+oses li.e local ad'inistration# +$%lic ed$cation# +$%lic health# etc. @nder the
afore'entioned law# Re+$%lic Act B4B8 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 L a total of 71 lots L since these were held % the for'er
Ia'%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$cted at the e"+ense of the for'er
0ro-ince of Ia'%oanga. Considering howe-er the fact that said %$ildings '$st ha-e %een
erected e-en %efore 28B; when Co''onwealth Act B8 was enacted and the f$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 L and its s$ccessors/in/interest L are not reall
de+ri-ed of the %enefits thereof.
B$t Re+$%lic Act B4B8 cannot %e a++lied to de+ri-e Ia'%oanga del Norte of its share in
the -al$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 Ia'%oanga Cit to ret$rn to +laintiff
Ia'%oanga del Norte in l$'+ s$' the a'o$nt of 01B#4B4.22 which the for'er too. %ac.
fro' the latter o$t of the s$' of 09:#B:B.1; +re-io$sl +aid to the latter. Secondl# the
defendants were ordered to effect +a'ents in fa-or of +laintiff of whate-er %alance
re'ains of +laintiffJs 91.B8M share in the 7; +atri'onial +ro+erties# after ded$cting
therefro' the s$' of 09:#B:B.1;# on the %asis of Resol$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.