RP v. PLDT, G.R. No.

L-18841, January 27, 1969

RP through Bureau of Telecommunications wants to compel PLDT to enter into an

interconnecting contract with it, because the parties could not agree on the terms and
conditions of the interconnection, and of its refusal to fix the terms and conditions therefor.

WON RP can compel PLDT to enter a contract.

NO. The parties can not be coerced to enter into a contract where no agreement is had
between them as to the principal terms and conditions of the contract. Freedom to stipulate
such terms and conditions is of the essence of our contractual system.
But the court a quo has apparently overlooked that while the Republic may not compel the
PLDT to celebrate a contract with it, the Republic may, in the exercise of the sovereign power
of eminent domain, require the telephone company to permit interconnection of the
government telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of the government service
may require, subject to the payment of just compensation to be determined by the court.
Nominally, of course, the power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of
title to, and possession of, the expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why the
said power may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of condemned
property, without loss of title and possession. It is unquestionable that real property may,
through expropriation, be subjected to an easement of right of way. The use of the PLDT's
lines and services to allow inter-service connection between both telephone systems is not
much different. In either case private property is subjected to a burden for public use and
benefit. If, under section 6, Article XIII, of the Constitution, the State may, in the interest of
national welfare, transfer utilities to public ownership upon payment of just compensation,
there is no reason why the State may not require a public utility to render services in the
general interest, provided just compensation is paid therefor. Ultimately, the beneficiary of
the interconnecting service would be the users of both telephone systems, so that the
condemnation would be for public use.

RP v. RURAL BANK OF KABACAN, INC.

The National Irrigation Administration (NIA) filed with the Regional Trial Court of Kabacan
(RTC) a complaint for expropriation of a portion of three parcels of land covering a total of
14,497.91 square meters for its Malitubog-Marigadao irrigation project. The committee
formed by the RTC pegged the fair market value of the land at Php 65.00 per square meter.
It also added to its computation the value of soil excavated from portions of two lots. RTC
adopted the findings of the committee despite the objections of NIA to the inclusion of the
value of the excavated soil in the computation of the value of the land. NIA, through the Office
of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with
modification the RTC’s decision. CA deleted the value of the soil in determination of
compensation but affirmed RTC’s valuation of the improvements made on the properties.

Whether or not the value of the excavated soil should be included in the computation of just
compensation.
Petition DENIED. Just compensation was the full and fair equivalent of the property taken
from its owner by the
expropriator. Measured not by taker’s gain, but the owner’s loss. The equivalent to be
rendered to the property should be real, substantial, full and ample.
Sum equivalent to the market value of the property (broadly defined as the price fixed byte
seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition; the
fair value of the property; as between one who receives and one who desires to sell it, fixed
at the time of the actual taking by the government). There is no legal basis to separate the
value of the excavated soil from that of the expropriated properties, contrary to what the
trial court did. In the context of expropriation proceedings, the soil has no value separate
from that of the expropriated land. Just compensation ordinarily refers to the value of the
land to compensate for what the owner actually loses. Such value could only be that which
prevailed at the time of the taking.

WHERE EXPROPRIATION SUIT IS FILED

SAN ROQUE v. PASTOR

San Roque filed an expropriation suit in MTC. MTC denied the expropriation suit on the
ground that an action for eminent domain is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
RTC. However, RTC dismissed the case because an action for eminent domain affected title
to real property; hence, the value of the property to be expropriated would determine
whether the case should be filed before the MTC or the RTC.

WON RTC has jurisdiction for expropriation suit.

RTCs, provided that courts of first instance had original jurisdiction over "all civil actions in
which the subject of the litigation is not capable of pecuniary estimation." In the main, the
subject of an expropriation suit is the governments exercise of eminent domain, a matter
that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

TAKING

Taking may include trespass without actual eviction of the owner, material impairment of
the value of the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property was
intended.

RP v. CASTELLVI

The government has rented and started occupying a parcel of land in 1947 and, when the
owner refused to continue extending the lease, commenced expropriation proceedings in
1959. As for the property was supposed to be assessed for purposes of just compensation
from the time of the taking