Just Compensation, Free Patents, and the 60-meter easement

The Constitution is explicit that taking of private property is not valid absent the payment of
just compensation. In the age of the Build-Build-Program of the government, landowners must
be armed of the knowledge of requiring payment of just compensation for the taking of their
private property by the Government or entities performing expropriation functions.

While as a rule, the Government should pay just compensation for the taking of private
property, not all taking is compensable.

Section 112 of the Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA 141), otherwise known as Public Land Act,
subjects lands covered by a title issued in accordance with said law to the an easement of right-
of-way not exceeding sixty (60) meters on width. Said easement is allotted to government,
public or quasi-public projects and structures, including the areas and sites for government
projects for resident and/or project engineers.

Said easement subsists even if the lot previously covered by a free patent under CA 141 has
been registered under an original certificate of title and transfer certificate of title (Republic of
the Philippines v. Spouses Regulto, G.R. No. 202051, April 18, 2016; National Irrigation
Administration v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114348, September 20, 2000).

In several decisions of the Supreme Court, it was ruled that the Government is under no
obligation to pay the landowner when it invokes its right of way under Section 112, CA 141
(Republic of the Philippines v. Spouses Alforte, G.R. No. 217051, August 22, 2018; Bartolata v.
Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 223334, June 7, 2017, Republic of the Philippines v.
Spouses Regulto). This is because it does fall within the definition of compensable taking.

However, the landowner is entitled to compensation for the structures and improvements
existing thereon. Moreover, the landowner is entitled to financial assistance, to be determined
by the implementing agency or instrumentality and in consultation with the Commission on
Audit and the Assessor’s Office, pursuant to Section 8 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 10752, or the Right-of-Way Act, in relation to the second
paragraph of Section 18 of EO No. 1035.

While as a rule the landowner is not entitled to just compensation for the affected portion
within the sixty-meter easement, the Supreme Court has carved out an exception: when the
integrity of the remaining lot is affected, compensation can be claimed as it is tantamount to
“taking” under the law.

In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Spouses Alforte, the petitioner, through the DPWH,
required 127 square meters for its road project out of the 300-square meter property of the
respondents. According to the Court, just compensation must be awarded to the respondents
because the project required nearly half of the whole property and thus rendered the remaining
portion of the land materially impaired. The Supreme Court ruled that the “taking” by the
DPWH affected the integrity of the whole property.