1.

The court a quo affirmed in toto the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners for the
plaintiff-appellant to pay defendants-appellants the amount of One Billion Nine Hundred Twenty
Million Three Hundred Seventy Four Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Four Pesos
(1,920,374,374.00) plus interest at the rate of twelve percent ( 12%) per annum, as just
compensation of defendants ' properties including land, improvements and consequential damages,
measured from the time when the instant Complaint has been filed.

It is respectfully submitted that defendants-appellants have sufficiently discharged the onus in this
case where the totality of the evidence presented sufficiently supports a finding that defendants-
appellants are rightfully entitled to the amount of Two Billion Five Hundred Ninety Eight Million Six
Hundred Sixty One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Seven Pesos CPhP2.598.661,687.00l as just
compensation.

DEFENDANTS' CLAIMS ARE VALID AND FULLY SUBSTANTIATED

Plaintiff-appellant maintains its stubborn stance that the compensation for the expropriation of the
affected lots should be pegged at One Hundred Eighty Eight Million Three Hundred Thirteen
Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Nine and 55/100 Pesos ('188,313,599.55). Such amount consists of (1)
the value of the affected areas computed based on the zonal valuation of the subject properties at
One Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos (Pl,800.00) per square meter, or One Hundred Fifty Two Million
Eight Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Pesos (PhP152,865,000.00) for the 84,925 square meters: and (2)
the value of the existing improvements within the subject property computed by plaintiff in the
supposed amount of Thirty Five Million Four Hundred Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Ninety
Nine and 55/100 Pesos (PhP35,448,599.55)

Plaintiff-appellant further asseverates that the amount of PhP188,313,599.55 which was

initially deposited as a prerequisite to the issuance of the writ of possession is enough and it is not
amenable to pay a single centavo more. Thus, following plaintiff-appellant’s contention, the
amount of 188,313,599.55 which was earlier determined as a provisional value for purposes of
securing the writ of possession is not provisional after all. According to plaintiff-appellant, the
amount of PhP 188,313,599.55 should in fact be considered as the full and final just compensation to
defendants-appellants.

Plaintiff-appellant's position is not only untenable but highly oppressive. It is tantamount to

stealing defendants- appellants ' properties right under their noses. It is not only contrary to
well-settled jurisprudence but it goes directly against the age old principle of justice and equity.

The Supreme Court already made a doctrinal pronouncement as to the nature of the payment of the
provisional value viz-a-viz the just compensation in expropriation cases in this wise:

The first refers to the preliminarv or provisional determination

of the value of the property. It serves a double-purpose of pre-
payment if the property is fully expropriated, and of an indemnity
for damages if the proceedings are dismissed. It is not a
final determination of just compensation and may not
necessarily be equivalent to the prevailing fair market value of
the property. Of course, it may be a factor to be considered in the
determination of just compensation.

Again, the provisional character of the payment means that it is not final, albeit sufficient under the
law to entitle the government to the writ of possession over the expropriated property. For purposes
of a writ of possession, there is no need to look into the peculiar and favorable features of the
properties to be expropriated; the court is being statutorily bound to rely only on the current
relevant zonal valuation of the BIR
Applying the foregoing, the amount of PhP 188,313,599.55 deposited by plaintiff-appellant
as the provisional value for purposes of obtaining possession to the subject properties CANNOT and
SHOULD not be considered as just compensation.

Defendants-appellants, on the other hand had sufficiently proven before the Commission by
testimonial and documentary evidence that: 1) the zonal value cannot be considered as the market
value of the properties subject of the case at bar; 2) considering that the properties within the Jaro
Grand Estates are suited for residential, industrial or commercial purposes, the market value of the
subject properties must be based on properties similarly used for such purpose; 3) there had been
existing improvements which were not considered by the DPWH, as testified and admitted by Engr.
Fruto; and 4) the detailed presentation with supporting computations made by defendants in its
claim for just compensation on the areas within the Jaro Grand Estates which were affected by the
Jaro Floodway Project has not been sufficiently rebutted by plaintiff- appellant through hard
evidence, save for its all-encompassing and self-proclaimed rule that the provisional sum in the
amount of 12188,313,599.55, previously deposited and received by the defendants-appellants
should be finally considered as just compensation

The current classification or actual use of the condemned properties, although a factor to
consider, cannot be and Is not the sole basis In determining the fair market value of such
property. The geographic composition of the property likewise dictates the value of the
whole consolidation. This includes the consolidation as a whole, proximity, shape, size and
the infrastructures surrounding the same. These are tangible and visible aspects that need
to be considered.

"Fair market value" is the price at which a property may

be sold by a seller who is not compelled to sell and
bought by a buyer who is not compelled to buy, taking
Into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted
and might In reason be applied."

Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property sought to be expropriated.so Among
the factors to be considered In arriving at the fair market value of the property are the cost of
acquisition, the current value of llke properties, Its actual or potential uses, and In the particular
case of lands, their size, shape, location, and the tax declarations thereon. The measure is not the
taker's gain but the owner's loss. To be just, the compensation must be fair not only to the owner but
also to the taker.

Likewise, it is unquestionable that the condemned properties of the defendants-appellants,

prior to the filing of the instant c a s e , w e r e i n t e n d e d t o be devoted for
residential/industrial/commercial use

Considering also the nature of business of the defendants-appellants, who are regarded in
this jurisdiction as established real estate companies, it further bolstered their claim that an
integrated township projec t would have been developed if not for the condemnation of t h e
s u b j e c t properties by way of expropriation

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHICH ARE CLEARLY

FOUNDED UPON JUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS AND SUPPORTED BY COMPUTATIONS PRESENTED TO THE
COMMISSION.

While the plaintiff-appellant recognized its obligation to pay for damages on the areas which
have been directly traversed by the Jara Floodway , albeit the question on the rightful valuation
still persists, the latter is however resolute in its position to reject defendants ' claim for
consequential damages on the affected properties, which are needed to be replaced and/or
restruc tured and/or re-planned despite the fact that defendants-appellants had been able to
sufficiently justify their claims through the testimony of defendant PEC's Vice-President Mr.
James Polit-Ang, who is also the authorized representative of defendant PRC and the
concomitant Claim Summary Support which have been presented and admitted as evidence for
the defendants.

Verily, it can be stated that the consequential damages demanded by herein defendants-
appellants were clearly founded upon justifiable grounds and supported by computations
presented before the Commission. Furthermore, records will show that the plaintiff-appellant
miserably failed to rebut such claim for consequential damages save for its repeated
contention that the same should not be given because the Jara Grand Estates is but a
wish of defendants- appellants.

As elucidated by the Supreme Court, no actual taking of the remaining portion of the real
property is necessary to grant consequential damages. If as a result of the expropriation
made by petitioner, the remaining lot x x x of private respondent suffers from an
impairment or decrease in value, consequential damages may be awarded to private
respondent

As stated, consequential damages are awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the remaining
property of the owner suffers from ·an impairment or decrease in value. Thus, there is a valid basis
for the grant of consequential damages to the property owner, and no unjust enrichment can result
therefrom.

More importantly, plaintiff-appellant cannot just close its eyes and feign ignorance of the fact that
defendants- appellants ' properties were once composed of contiguous and consolidated lots which
were directly cut in the middle by the floodway project. Since the floodway directly traversed the
middle of defendants-appellants ' properties, there are portions of the subject properties which while
not directly traversed by the floodway are nonetheless rendered uneconomic or inaccessible.
Plaintiff-appellant cannot deny that the floodway cut away other portions of these lots leaving the
same unsuitable for development for which the properties were originally intended.

As repeatedly pointed out, the Jaro Grand Estates project was not plucked out from thin air. The
project is real and existing and it was not a mere afterthought simply for the purpose of milking
money · from the government. The defendants-appellants, being stock corporations purchased the
subject properties for an intended legitimate business purpose and which purpose is now being
hampered and bombarded with problems.