ARTICLE 3 SECTION 9 CASE 1 OF 13
To Toledo-Gozun because the amount deposited as provisional
REPUBLIC OF THE PH vs. VDA DE CASTELLVI
FACTS: [big chance you’ll hate this case bc daming ganap]
1. REPUBLIC: filed a complaint for eminent domain against defendant-appellee Carmen
vda de Castellvi who is the judicial administratrix of the estate of the late Alfonso de
Castellvi over a parcel of land, and against defendant-appellee Maria Toledo-Gozun
over two parcels of land
a. Republic alleged that fair market value of lands was not more than P2k per
hectare, or a total market value of P259,669.10
b. Also prayed that court authorize plaintiff to take immediate possession of
lands upon deposit of amount with the Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga
c. + that court appoints 3 commissioners to ascertain and report to court the just
compensation for property sought to be expropriated
d. + that court issue final order of condemnation
2. CASTELLVI: residential land had a fair market value of P15/m2 and that Republic,
through AFP (particularly the Air Force), had been illegally occupying her property,
thereby preventing her from using and disposing of it
a. Prayed that complaint be dismissed or that Republic be ordered to pay
P15/m2 + interest at 6%/yr
b. + that Republic be ordered to pay her P5M as unrealized profits + costs of suit
3. (A bunch of people intervened as party-defendant, including Toledo-Gozun)
4. Republic deposited with Provincial Treasurer amount of P259,669.10 and the trial court
ordered that Republic be placed in possession of lands
5. TOLEDO-GOZUN (Motion to Dismiss):
a. that her 2 parcels of land were residential lands and that a portion had
already been subdivided into different lots for sale to the general public and
the remaining portion had already been set aside for expansion sites of the
already completed subdivisions
b. that the fair market value of lands was P15/m2
c. prayed that complaint be dismissed or that she be paid for the P15/m2 +
interest at 6%/yr + attorney’s fees in amount of P50k
6. Trial court authorized Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga to pay Toledo-Gozun
P107,609 as provincial value of her land, and P151,859.80 to Castellvi as provincial value
of land under her administration
a. Also appointed 3 commissioners for the defendants who later submitted their
reports and recommendations wherein,
i. after determining that lands were residential lands, the
recommended lowest price to be paid was P10/m2 for both lands.
ii. That Toledo-Gozun be paid addt’l P5k for improvements on land
iii. Legal interest on compensation be paid after deducting amounts
already paid to the owners
iv. No consequential damages
7. All parties objected to the report (lmao)
a. Castellvi + Toledo-Gozun: insist that fair mkt value be P15/m2.
b. Republic: that price be paid for lands be fixed at P0.20/m2.
8. TRIAL COURT:
a. That the P10/m2 recommendation was fair and just
b. That plaintiff will pay 6% interest on total value of lands
i.
value until full payment is made to said defendant or deposit
therefor is made in court
ii. To Castellvi from when plaintiff commenced its illegal possession
of land when the instant action had not yet been commenced to
when the provisional value thereof was deposited in court
9. Republic: motion for new trial + MR on grounds of newly-discovered evidence (denied)
ISSUES:
1. W/N erred in holding the “taking” of property under expropriation commenced with
the filing of this action NO
2. W/N lower court erred in finding P10/m2 as just compensation YES
3. W/N erred in ordering plaintiff-appellant to pay 6% interest on adjudged value of
Castellvi property to start from plaintiff’s “commenced illegal possession” YES
4. W/N erred in denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for new trial NO
RULING:
1. TAKING OF PROPERTY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE
IN 1947 WHEN REPUBLIC COMMENCED TO OCCUPY PROPERTY AS LESSEE
BUT RATHER WHEN IT WAS PLACED IN POSSESSION BY AUTHORITY OF
COURT IN 1959 (WHEN COMPLAINT FOR EMINENT DOMAIN FILED)
a. CONTEXT: Castellvi property had been occupied by Air Force since 1947
under a contract of lease which duly stipulated that the foregoing contract of
lease is similar in terms and conditions, including the date, with the annual
contracts entered into from year to year between said parties. HOWEVER,
before the expiration of contract of lease on June 1956, Republic sought to
renew same but Castellvi refused.
i. Undisputed that Republic occupied said land from July 1947 by
virtue of said contract on a year-to-year basis under the terms and
conditions therein stated.
ii. Castellvi wrote to Chief of Staff of AFP that the heirs of the
property had decided NOT to continue leasing property because
they had decided to subdivide the land for sale to the general
public, demanding they vacate within 40 days
iii. Castellvi sought to eject them via suit in CFI but while ejectment
case pending, Republic instituted expropriation proceedings, and
was placed in possessions of the lands
A. HOWEVER, ejectment case eventually got dismissed
because plaintiff has already signed an agreement with
defendants, whereby she has agreed to receive the rent
of the land from Jun 1956 when contract of lease expired
to 1959 when Air Force was placed in possession by
virtue of Court order upon deposit of provisional
amount
b. REPUBLIC: that “taking” of property should be deemed as of 1947 by virtue
of lease agreement
c. HOWEVER, NUMBER OF CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE PRESENT IN
“TAKING” OF PROPERTY FOR PURPOSE OF EMINENT DOMAIN
i. Expropriation must enter a private property (present)
 ii. Entrance into private property must be for more than momentary
period (ABSENT)
A. Lease contract was for year-to-year basis, making it
temporary and transitory despite installations of
permanent nature by Republic (terms of contract > intent
of lessee) since it required renewal after every year
iii. Entry into property should be under warrant or color of legal
authority (present because Republic entered property as lessee)
iv. Property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected (present because property was
used by air force)
v. Utilization of property for public use must be in such a way as to
oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the
property (ABSENT)
A. Castellvi remained as owner and continuously
recognized as owner by Republic (as shown by yearly
renewal of contract + provision whereby Republic
undertook to return property when lease terminated)
B. Neither was Castellvi deprived of all beneficial
enjoyment of property (Republic paid monthly rentals
until the time when it filed complaint for eminent
domain in 1959)
d. NOTE:
i. year to year lease cannot give rise to a permanent right to occupy
despite Republic’s contention to such
ii. Neither can it be said that right to eminent domain may be
exercised by simply leasing premises to be expropriated
iii. Nor can it be accepted that Republic would enter into a contract of
lease where its real intent was to buy, OR WHY THE REPUBLIC
SHOULD ENTER INTO A SIMULATED CONTRACT OF LEASE
WHEN ALL THIS TIME THE REPUBLIC HAD THE RIGHT OF
EMINENT DOMAIN AND COULD EXPROPRIATE LAND IF IT
WANTED TO WITHOUT RESORTING TO ANY GUISE (bitch)
iv. Neither can we see how right to buy could be merged in a contract
of lease in absence of any agreement between parties to that effect
v. Obviously a deceptive scheme, which would have the effect of
depriving the owner of property of its true and fair market value
at the time when expropriation proceedings were actually
instituted in court.
e. Expressly agreed in lease agreement that should the lessor require lessee to
return the premises in the same condition as at the time the same was first
occupied by AFP, the lessee would have the “right and privilege” (i.e. option)
of paying the lessor what it would fairly cost to put the premises in same
condition as it was at the commencement of the lease.
i. Fair value @ occupancy =/= value of property if bought
f. Same banana for Toledo-Gozun
2. INDEED RESIDENTIAL LANDS AND BUT P10/M2 BROUGHT DOWN TO P5/M2
a. There is evidence to prove that lands in question had ceased to be devoted to
production of agri crops and had become adaptable for residential purposes
even before the Republic filed the complaint for eminent domain
b. CITY OF MANILA v. CORRALES: Guidelines in determining value of
property expropriated for public purposes
i. Same considerations are to be regarded as in a sale of property
between private parties
ii. A lot of circumstances need to be taken into account but generally,
we should say that the compensation of owner is to be estimated
by reference to the use for which property is suitable, having
regard to the existing business or wants of community, or such as
may be reasonably expected in immediate future
c. Lower court’s finding supported by unanimous opinion of commissioners
and by Provincial Appraisal Committee
i. Castellvi thought of subdividing land into residential lots as early
as July 1956 in her letter to the Chief of Staff of AFP
ii. Layout of subdivision plan tentatively approved by national
Planning Commission (NPC) as early as Sept 1956
iii. Land had not been devoted to agriculture since 1947
iv. In 1957, land was classified as residential and taxes based on its
classification as residential had been paid since then
d. Same banana with Toledo-Gozun (BOTH DEFO RESIDENTIAL LANDS)
e. RE QUESTION OF JUST COMPENSATION
i. REPUBLIC P0.20/m2 basis: REPUBLIC v. NARCISO
A. HOWEVER case no longer applies here because
a. Owners in case had specifically asked for
P2,000 per hectare and Court said that owners
of land could not be given more than what
they had asked for notwithstanding
recommendation of Commission on Appraisal
that it should be P3,000 per hectare
b. P0.20/m2 was considered the fair market value
of lands as of 1949 and at the time they were
classified as sugar lands
ii. As of present case (1959), land of Castellvi assessed at P1/m2
iii. Should be noted as well that the amount fixed as PROVISIONAL
VALUE OF LANDS that are being expropriated does NOT
necessarily represent the true and correct value of the land
A. MOREOVER, altho Provincial Appraisal Committee via
RESO #5 (1957) recommended sum of P0.20 as fair
valuation, it was later repealed by RESO #10 (1959) and
increased to P1.50
iv. After studying the records and evidence, and after considering the
circumstances attending lands in question, court decided P10 was
too high and considered the view that P5/m2 would be fair
valuation and would constitute just compensation to owners
3. REPUBLIC SHOULD PAY INTEREST AT 6% ON VALUE OF LAND MINUS THE
PROVISIONAL VALUE THAT WAS DEPOSITED ONLY FROM JULY 1959 WHEN
IT WAS DEPOSITED IN COURT THE PROVISIONAL VALUE OF THE LAND
a. Must be noted that if Castellvi had agreed to receive the rentals from June
1956 to Aug 1959, she should be considered as having allowed her land to be
leased to the Republic and she could not at the same time be entitled to
payment of interest during same period

4. “NEW EVIDENCE” ALL IMMATERIAL AND IRRELEVANT BECAUSE SALES

COVERED SUGARLANDS WITH SUGAR QUOTAS WHILE THE LANDS
SOUGHT TO BE EXPROPRIATED IN INSTANT CASE WERE RESIDENTIAL
a. Alleged new evidence:
i. Deed of absolute sale (1961) showing that certain Serafin Francisco
had sold to Pablo Narciso a parcel of sugar land
ii. Deed of sale of some 35,000m2 of land by spouses Evelyn Laird and
Cornelio Laird in favor of spouses Bienveniedo Aguas and Josefina
Aguas for P0.21/m2
iii. Deed of absolute sale of parcel of land for P0.09/m2 by Jesus
Mendoza in favor of Land Tenure Administration
b. To warrant grant of new trial, must appear that evidence was discovered
AFTER THE TRIAL; that even with exercise of due diligence, evidence could
not have been discovered and produced at the trial and that evidence is of
such nature as to alter the result of the case if admitted
c. Even gratia argumenti, “that lands mentioned were residential, evidence
would still not warrant grant of new trial for said evidence could have been
discovered and produced at the trial and cannot be considered NEWLY
DISCOVERED evidence”