ANSALDO VS TANTUICO 188 SCRA 300 NARVASA; August 2, 1990 NATURE Petition to review Commission on Audit decision FACTS

- Petitioners, Spouses Ansaldo, owned two parcels of land which were taken by the government and used to widen what is now Ramon Magsaysay Avenue in 1947. However, it was only in 1973 or 26 years later that the spouses claimed for compensation. The Secretary of Justice in due course rendered an opinion that just compensation be paid in accordance with PD No. 76. This decree provided that basis for the payment should be the current and fair market value as declared by the owner or such value as determined by the assessor, whichever was lower. (It should be noted however that at the time the decision was made by the SC, this provision on payment was already declared unconstitutional in 1988 in the Export Processing vs Dulay case where said mode was said to be an impermissible encroachment on the judicial prerogative to resolve the compensation issue in an appropriate proceeding of eminent domain) - Pursuant to the opinion of the Justice Secretary, the auditor of the Bureau of Public Highways recommended to the auditor General that payment be made on the basis of the current and fair market value and not on the fair market value at the time the property was in fact expropriated. The Commission on Audit declined the said recommendation and instead ruled that the amount of compensation should be determined as of the time of taking of the parcels of land. The motion for reconsideration filed by the spouses Arsaldo was denied. - Hence this appeal to the Supreme Court. ISSUE WON the fixing of compensation should be at the time of the taking of the property HELD Yes. Normally, of course, where the institution of an expropriation action precedes the taking of the property subject thereof, the just compensation is fixed as of the time of the filing of the complaint. This is so provided by the Rules of Court, the assumption of possession by the expropriator ordinarily being conditioned on its deposits with the National or Provincial Treasurer of the value of the property as provisionally ascertained by the court having jurisdiction of the proceedings. There are instances, however, where the expropriating agency takes over the property prior to the expropriation suit, as in this case although, to repeat, the case at bar is quite extraordinary in that possession was taken by the expropriator more than 40 years prior to suit. In these instances, this Court has ruled that the just compensation shall be determined as of the time of taking, not as of the time of filing of the action of eminent domain. - The reason for the rule, as pointed out in Republic v. Lara,16 is that "x x (W)here property is taken ahead of the filing of the condemnation proceedings, the value thereof may be enchanced by the public purpose for which it is taken; the entry by the plaintiff upon the property may have depreciated its value thereby; or, there may have been a natural increase in the value of the property from the time the complaint is filed, due to general economic conditions. The owner of private property should be compensated only for what he actually loses; it is not intended that his compensation shall extend beyond

his

taken,

loss or injury. And what he loses is only the actual value of his property at the time it is taken. This is the only way that compensation to be paid can be truly just; i.e., 'just not only to the individual whose property is but to the public, which is to pay for it.'"

- Clearly, then, the value of the Ansaldos' property must be ascertained as of the year 1947, when it was actually taken, and not at the time of the filing of the expropriation suit, which, by the way, still has to be done. It is as of that time that the real measure of their loss may fairly be adjudged. The value, once fixed, shall earn interest at the legal rate until full payment is effected, conformably with other principles laid down by case law. Disposition Petition DENIED.