17. REPUBLIC VS CEBUAN gain, but the owner's loss.
gain, but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word
G.R. NO. 191560
MARCH 29, 2011
TOPIC: EXPROPRIATION
PETITIONER: REPUBLIC OF PH REPRESENTED BY NAT’L IRRIGATION ADMIN. (NIA)
RESPONDENTS: ROLAND CEBUAN ET AL
PONENTE: TIJAM
DOCTRINE: Just compensation can only be determined by reliable and actual data hence courts
should be circumspect in determining such due to the owners considering that public funds are
used to buy said properties.
FACTS:
1. NIA identified several parcels of land for its Lower Agusan Dev’t Project (Project) to
construct irrigation canals. Said lands were owned by the respondents herein.
2. NIA commenced expropriation proceedings after failure to negotiate a sale w/
respondents. It based the values of the properties on BIR Zonal Evaluation as specified in
DO No. 16-2000 thus arriving w/ a total aggregate amount of PhP60,094.50 for all the
parcels of land, w/c measured 11,737m2, sought to be expropriated. (So if you divide the
monetary amount with the total land area, its equal to PhP5.12/m2)
3. Respondents were willing to accede the lands to NIA provided that the properties be
valued at least PhP300/m2. Nevertheless, in 2002-2003, respondents executed a permit to
enter in NIA’s favor and corresponding payments for damages caused to crops therein;
however, some of the respondents did not get paid as they had no improvements on their
respective properties.
4. NIA moved for possession and deposit the said amount involved based on the current BIR
Zonal Value and other documents to w/c the RTC granted. Some of the respondents move
to defer the possession as they had not been fully paid of the improvements on their
properties as they were deprived of the use of the same since 1999.
5. As proposed by NIA and agreed upon by parties, the RTC created a Board of Commissioners
(BOC) to determine the fair market value of the properties. It found that some of the
properties were priced at PhP45/m2 while some were priced at PhP120/m2. NIA opposed
said report for being grossly excessive then contended that the value of the properties
should only be PhP0.90/m2 w/c was the price of the properties when they were bought by
NIA.
6. RTC: Rendered partial judgement and adopted the BOC’s report. There was a land similar
to the properties in this case that was bought by NIA priced at PhP160/m2 w/c was not
refuted by NIA.
7. CA: Partially granted NIA’s appeal. It held that the recommended assessed value by the
BOC were not exorbitant as it were based on the appraisal by different people, the findings
of ocular inspection, distance to national roads, the crops therein and other similar
adjacent lands. The BIR Zonal Evaluation should not have been the sole basis for NIA’s
pricing. However, it observed that some of the respondents were not paid for the
improvements of their properties hence the case was remanded to the RTC for further
reception of evidence.
8. ISSUE: WoN NIA’s appraisal based on the BIR Zonal Evaluation was correct –
RULING
NO EROR IN THE ASSESSMENT VALUE OF THE LAND
9. In expropriation proceedings, just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent
of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's
compensation and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the
property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.
10. The limitation of just compensation is considered to be a sum equivalent to the market
value of the property, broadly defined as the price fixed by the seller in open market in the
usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition; or 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.
11. Courts have the discretion to determine just compensation pursuant to the mandate that
no property shall be taken for public use w/o payment of just compensation. Thus, the
other gov’t branches that fixes or provides the method of computing just compensation is
an encroachment on judicial power. Sec. 5, RA 8974 provides an enumeration of the
standards to determine the assessed value of a property thus NIA’s claimed that the price
should be fixed based on the zonal evaluation and tax declarations are misplaced as there
are other factors to be considered.
12. Just compensation can only be determined by reliable and actual data hence courts should
be circumspect in determining such due to the owners considering that public funds are
used to buy said properties. In this case, the BOC used the Market Data Approach wherein
sales and other external factors such as location and characteristics of the properties are
taken into account, appraisals from other sources and site inspection hence the market
value was backed up by actual and reliable data.
13. While just compensation, to which the owner of the property to be expropriated is
entitled, is equivalent to the market value, the rule is modified where only a part of
property is expropriated. As such, the owner is not restricted to compensation to what was
actually taken, but is also entitled to consequential damages as found in Sec. 6, Rule 67.
Sec. 6. Proceedings by commissioners. - Before entering upon the performance of their
duties, the commissioners shall take and subscribe an oath that they will faithfully perform
their duties as commissioners, which oath shall be filed in court with the other proceedings
in the case. Evidence may be introduced by either party before the commissioners who are
authorized to administer oaths on hearings before them, and the commissioners shall,
unless the parties consent to the contrary, after due notice to the parties, to attend, view
and examine the property sought to be expropriated and its surroundings, and may
measure the same, after which either party may, by himself or counsel, argue the case. The
commissioners shall assess the consequential damages to the property not taken and
deduct from such consequential damages the consequential benefits to be derived by the
owner from the public use or purpose of the property taken, the operation of its franchise
by the corporation or the carrying on of the business of the corporation or person taking
the property. But in no case shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the
consequential damages assessed, or the owner be deprived of the actual value of his
property so taken.
14. If as a result of expropriation, the remaining portion suffers from diminution or
impairment, consequential damages should be awarded, while conversely, if the
expropriation benefits the remaining lot, such benefits may be deducted from the
consequential damages or from value of the expropriated property. They should be actual
benefits derived by the owner w/c are direct and proximate results of the improvements
due to expropriation.
REMAND TO EXPROPRIATION COURT FOR DETERMINING ALLEGED UNDERPAYMENT ON THE
VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENT IS UNNECEESARY
15. Per records, the disbursement vouchers show that payments for improvements have been
made and received by the owners. Respondents never contested the amount paid. Only
when they filed a MR for the issuance of writ of possession did they allege underpayment
of the improvements arose and there was no proof in relation thereto presented.
16. Further perusal of respondents’ statements as to the alleged underpayment show what
they were really claiming was the value of the affected crops due to NIA’s entry into their
properties w/c is not within the ambit of RA 8971 as it only pertains to improvements and
not unrealized harvests.
17. Their alleged deprivation from 1999 is unfounded as NIA entered said properties in 2003
after payment of the improvements from time of taking.
FALLO: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court RESOLVES to PARTLY GRANT the Petition such
that:
The assailed Decision dated July 13, 2012 and Resolution dated February 6, 2013 of the Court
of Appeals finding petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the National Irrigation
Authority, liable to pay just compensation in the amount computed by the Regional Trial Court
sans the award for unrealized income are AFFIRMED.
However, in conformity with the existing laws, rules, and jurisprudence, the amount of legal
interest is MODIFIED such that the interest rate of twelve percent (12%) p.a. on the balance
due from May 7, 2003 until June 30, 2013 and the interest rate of six percent (6%) p.a. from
July 1, 2013 until fully paid are imposed.
The order remanding the instant case to the Regional Trial Court for determination of alleged
unpaid improvements on the affected properties is DELETED.