vie oe ei xt a REPUBLICOF THE PHILIPPINES INUIT (NATIONAL CaprraL spices REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 269 ; gttiiey a. OROONED VALENZUELA CITY i Sinan Alexander \) He 7 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, i sep. by the Department of Public : Works and Highways (OPWH}, Plaintiff, VIN Le versus SPOUSES FELICIANO J. FRANCISCO and FLORDELIZA M. FRANCISCO, Defendants. om DECISION Before the Court is an action for expropriation filed by the Republic of the Phitippines, represented by, the Qepartment of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), in the exercise of its power of eminent ‘domain as provided under Republic Act No. 8974 The Republic, seeks 1p exptopriate @ parcel of land measuring 1.000-Square meters, more or less, covered Dy Transfer Certificate of Title No. V-34450 registered under the name of defendant Feliciano J. Francisco, Inarried to Flordeliza M, Francisco. The land is currently declared for taxation purposes under. Tax Declatation No. © ‘N1B-023470. Wis situated n Barangay Gen. T. De Leon, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila. In its Complaint, plaintiff avers that it seeks to expropriate defendants’ property and its improvements for the purpose ‘of constructing the NLEX-Harbor Tink Project (Segment 9), a national government infrastructure project intended to provide faster and comfortable travel 10 the mototing public from the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) to MacArthur Highway, Valenzuela City. It offered to purchase the subject property and its improvements for an amount based on {heir current zonal valuation and replacement cost, respectively; but the offer was rejected by defendants: Hanes; tt initiated this judicial action The Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) ie initially irnpleaded as party-defendant, since It appeared € & mortgagee of the subject parcel of land. Summons was served upon defendant Flordeliza Francisco on April. 12. 2013, and upon Metrobank on April 25, 2013. ina ‘Manifestation with Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, filed on April 25, 2013, defendants Francisco through counsel maniiested that Feliciano J. Franesee thas passed away on July 19. 2012, and that his heirs are stil in the process of settling his estate. They further manifested that the subject property fs no fonder mortgaged to Metrobank, hut to L & R Corporation, in 2 subsequent Manifestation (in Lieu of Answer)’ ¢CIVIL CASE NO. 86-43 fled on Nay 29, 2013, defendants Francisco ‘reiterated their earlier Trarifeetations and further states that they are not inlemposing any objection to the expropriation of the property, subject to the payment of just compensation They also expressly reserved thelr right to present evidence, 3 plaintiff's proffered value is allegedly not reflective of the true valuation of the subject property. in addition, they prayed thal, upon thei paymert of the estate taxes Po ey obligation secured by the property, the payment deposited by plaintif be reteased in their favor. In an Answer filed on dune 7, 2013, Metrobank confirmed that, even prior to the institution of the «nstant Complaint, the mortgage ofti~e subject property Mh ra teaver has been cancelled) It attached to the newer @ copy of a Full Cancetistion of Real Estate Marigape, dated June 6, 2011, signed and executed by defendants: Hence, Metrobank sought the dismissal of the Complaint against itron the ground of lack of cauise of action. Accordingly, in the Order issued on ‘June 14, 2013, Metrobank was dropped as party defendant Pursuant lo Section 4 (a)? of RA 8974, plainliff deposited wil) tne Cour ihe amount of P'14,124.273'50, fepresenting 100% (of the Value of the property Sought to be expropriated basted on the ourrent zonal valuation of tne Purnent of Maenal Revenue (BIR) and the estimated replacement.Gostof the improvements thereon. Henceforth, the Court directed: the issuance of a writ of possession” i favor of plaintiff, allowing it to take possession of the props expropriated. Upon subrmision by defendants of suffictent pro? a Upon the hing of the eontplai: boceRer dive ncbea.ie Meteor, Yoo wnpemenin agency shall mmochately pay the Gamer OL the property tie arpunb sallvelsnt Ihe 8" Turndred percent (100%) of the value oF the property based ou-ihe-einan. «sl: 9" tt a : verve (BIR), and (2) the value: of Uieseniptch of C1 Na, V-34450 ce-dated May 31, 2073 Esti" eceaph Nor VORIIE Exhibit 6°” Tax Reoeipt No ¥C2 Eoduia ‘7° Tax Deckaration No C-018-23470 (land) Exit arc Deslaration Ho GA076-28087 mnpravement Exhibt "9" Special Power of Attorney Exhubi10" Affidavit of Publicalior Extubt*11" Estate Tax Return dated July 18,2012 7 Exhilv “32° PNE.BTR-A Payierd Slip dated kin 7, 0013 Tonist47? Saraqocioia Settlement pf Estate Exhibt set irae obpy OF the Osalicate A Rellataro Fr Coie sor savsiage Coviiiacl bewgen Felicia Frapelnce afieipielzs Mendoza Cepia te: COMETS \seniianion Card, 1A Clearance Renewal Cor ar ; Flordeiza Fraveisey Certified true copy of thd Cert eta a SOMEL EC Wlertiication Cands'of Phibp Franc 20" Copy a the certificate of bith of fio Fre Exhibi 21" COMELEC Idenbiieaborr Gard 1 jeriifes Frarniscey Exnibit-22° Copy of the vertiigate of Exhibil'23° Certihed true copy of the Cerbficate Teaian Francise stanue Renewed (ard and passport of arlos Navis andCIVIL CASE NO. 56-V-13 ownership of the subject propefty; the said! initial payment was released in favor of their authorized representative The Court proceeded to’ determine whether the purpose of the expropriation ts indeed for public use. Considering that the project involves the Construction of a public road) connecting the NUEXMindanao Avenue Link Cloverleaf to Macarthur Highway, Valenzuela Cty, to Serve the general motoring public, the Court found the expropriation of the subject property. which will be Paversed by the road project, a valid exercise of the| State's power of eminent domain. Since the payment Of the expropriated property's current zona! value which is a prerequisite to. the Issuance of a writ of possession, differs from the payment of just compensation, which is based on the prevailing fair market value,’ the Court constituted @ Board of Commissioners’ for the purpose of determining the amount of just compensation, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. In the Oculat Inspection Report (dated March 5, 2014) of the Board, the subject property was desoribed as follows It is located along M. delog Reyes St.. Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzucta.City Itis classified as commercial lot. It is facing Bottle Caps warehouse. It ts likewise facing an alea which 4s. previously decupied by informal settlers whose relocation were unilertaken by the NHA, already clearea by DPWH. where construction achvities of G5 Road are on-going At the time of the inspection. the property is already vatant Por manifestation of the DPWH representative, prior te the clearing of the property by the OPW, there were existing improvements uding but not limited to the concrete residential house, ¢ olf site, and wareho Several existing warehouses aré adjacent to the property Facilities and utilities: | Transportatior vate vehielés’ and t Wats Maynilad: Electricity Meralos: and Telephone - PLOT Per the Conn ape! Report! submitted on Mavernber 29) 2014) Hetermining the fair market Yalue of the subject property, the Board aclopted the Sales Companson Approadh, iby comparing: recent similar property: sales. ¢ 4° Clearance Of Real Propetty Tax for the 2% Qaaier 20% Exhibit "25" Tax Declaration. No, C01 Exhibi°26"- Tax Declaration blo, C-018 328 Reooids p21 © Cycer dated Novernber 4, 2013. Capitol Steel Corporation ys |Phividec Jr 4) Auirenity, GR Wo. 109463, Decernber € The Coli apporited Meola Al Hnk fees of tip Count ar Ong of the Bureacr ot intemal Reverie Of ity, 28 comeeitssioners * Records, pp, 350-355CIVIL CASE NO. 56-V-13 (comparables) within the same|market area to the sublet parcel of land and adjusting the comparabies for dipsimt ties” Such approach is purportedly most commonly used for residential property and vacant land Henee, the Board noted the sale in 2013 of @ lot with an ares of 50 square meters within Barangay Gen 7 de Leon for P284,000,00 ar almost P5,700.00 per square meter. It also vonpidered the price ot P'28,800,000:00, or 9,000.00 per Square meter being tifered for the sale of a lot with an area of 3.200 square meters located also in Barangay Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela City." The Board also made the following findings: neither would the defendants’ allegation on the logation of the property and the pul ‘of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, in ae ee CU No, 95t40.which merely affirmed the ecision of the Region! Trial Cait Branch 172, Valenzuela City (RTC), docketed a Civil Case No. 1S V-08, which pegged the just compensation of another Jot Jocated in Gen, T. de Leon, at wore 960. o6 per square meter, mefit consideration. A genusal of the said RTC Decision would show that the property subject thereat is located along Mindanao ‘Avenue Road Extension and approximately 200 meters trom Quinno Avenue, a major thoroughfare, Maeover evelopment Of that’ property in the immediate vicinity is about, 60% build-up. in the instant case: although the roporty has been classified as commercial lat, its difference lies, amore others. ‘on the fact that there were aise informal settlers occUuPyING thon at the site facing: the property prior to its Being cleared by the OPW which circumstance negatively affected the valuation of the subject property" In other words, the Board found inapplicable to the instant case the Court of Appeals’ Decision. (cited [by defendants in thet Position Paper’), which ffimed the Regional Trial Court, Branch 172, Valenzuela Cty, in pegang the just compensation at 75,000.00 per square meter of anather fot located! in Gen MS esl con, subject also of an expropriation case docketed as CM! Case No. 15 08. The reasons given were that (1) the property subject of said case is located along Mindanao Avenue Road Extension and approximately 200 meters from Quirino. Avenue, a major thoroughfare; <2) the development of the remediate vicinity of that property is about 60% build-up, and (3) the oc% supation by informal settiers of the property across herein defendants property negatively affects the valuation of the subject property The Board, thus, concluded, as follows With the foregoing indicators, the Board opines that the amount of 17,500.00 par square meter which is within the range of the propery © BIR zonal visation of Pa.a00,00) and the prevailing selling price of P8.000 (00 of the property within the wiciity of M. delos Reyes. Gen. T de Leon, is reasonable and the closest approximation of the vaiue of the subject property r With respect to the value of the improvements, the Board found reasonable the temized and detailed computation of thelr Teplacement cost 2s submitted by plaintiff. 9, [ © commigsioners’ Report, & page tonaumbered) toad L Recotds, 9 325-533 rrmisctaners' Repet, 348 4 pages (unnumbered)CIVIL CASE NO. 86-V-13 Despite having been giv lent time, the parties failed to. timely mit their comments on the Commissioners’ Report sut n ‘atlier, the only issue for resolution is the appropriate nant ensation that should be paid by plaintiff forthe expropnated outably, in the exercise of its pow sation to the property ov 1) of the Constitution. Just compensation is the fair market must give ji requirements of ection icle value of the sty, whiclh 48 that Sum of money that.a person desirous t compe + willing but not compelled to selt wou! as the price tot i and recerved therefor. ° vaiue of the based on the prevailing fait marke For purposes of just compensation, the fair market ted property is determined by its character and its price of the time of taking The property's char refers to ts actual cise at the time of taking, not its potential uses, The potential use of a property be the principal criterion for determining just compensation, ethers, © wr to the tied doctrine thak the fait market value of ani expropriated propetly pecifically, Section 5 pf Republic Act No, 8974 prov T relevant standa essing the value npropriated prog ECT Assessment of the bject of or Negotiated Sal tablished factors, the following relevant standard! The fication and use for which the property ‘ b) The developmental costs for improving the The reasonable 4 mpen: for a demolition of certain improv on the fand and 2 Wels, of improvements thereon; dec 9 and 2 alu the Liane t anenenk. A third similar Moti , ’ 0 i vos Reamnantetalion of sand Cadet was: litew snk t tied on Jarkiary 9 fonger cOreitet apitol © pera : ; 4 ber ¢ ® Land Blank of the Phiippines vs: Lilioc ’CIVIL CASE NO. 56-V-13 (@) The price of the land as manifestod in the cular findings, oral as well ae documentary evidence presented; and {py Such facts and events a8 to enable the affected propery Homer to 1 Sufficient funds to acquire similary-situated lands of approximate raves as those requifed from them by the government, and thereby Cchabilitate themselves 23 early as possible, ‘The subject property, which is situated in Barangay Cep. T: de Leon, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, is classified as a commercial jot." Based on the Complaint, a commercial watet station and @ shop ‘warehouse were among the improvements” ‘owsting on the property at the time of the fing of ihe expropriation Complaint. As further observed by the commissioners, there are several warehouses within the vicinity of the property, Verily, the expropriated property is suited and was actually used, albelt partly, for commercial purposes. Parenthetically, the Board of Commissioners should not have used the Sales Comparison Approach in its determination of the fair market value of the subject property, By its own admission, such ‘approach Is the preferred approach for (determining the market value vf) % 18s r“propeny "aru vacani Tart However, the parcel of land ‘subject of the instant case is classified as @ commercial lot and was not vacant at the time it was expropriated. in any event, Section 5 of RA 8974 allows the current selling price of sirtar races in the wienty fo be considered in assessing the value, of ie ‘expropriated property. In ‘this relation, the Board found a commercial land ‘eeated also in Barangay Gen, T. de Leon, Valenzuela City, ‘being offered for sale in the amount of 99,000.00 per square meter. As ‘appearing in the ad printout attached to the Commissioner's Report, the sale offer was posted on December 31, 2013, within the same year of the subject property's expropriation. Although, it is a mere offer, the quoted price is stil indicative of the then current selling price of commercial Jand in the area. Another standard that may be considered is the reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or demolition of improvements on the affected land. As mentioned earlier, plaintiff acknowledged the existence ‘of a commercial tana reid & shop warehouse among the improvements on the sublect yy, which also include two residential houses. Based on the photographs” bittached to the Complaint, there appear to be equipment and machineries in the premises that may had to be removed by defendants. ‘Another assessment standard, the zonal valuation of the subject property at 4,400.00 per square meter, appears to have been determined in 2002, a8 it ae offect in January 2003. | Stated otherwise, the said value wes arvited at roms than a decade before the expropriation of the subject property However, ® Gxtuba -7", records, p. 261. See also BIR Certiioation, attached: 9° Annex “B’ of the Compiaint, records, pp. 13-14. a Thee oltver unprNements, consisted of 2 two-slorey ‘qunotete residential House, @ cyclone fence a deep well with JHE: motor and double easing, @ conerete ‘pavement; a one-storey rer fo reakiential house wth root deck, and @ conoreleiGH 8 penmeter wall 2 ancex F* arxl series of the Complaint, records, pp. 73-79 2 annex °B* of the Complaint, Supra iCIVIL CASE NO. 56-V-43 for the purpose of determining just compensation, the fair market value of the expropriated x cperty should be reckoned at the time of the fie St the Complaint, which was on February 20, 2013. Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that, absent adverse factors {none of which was alleged and proven in this case), the market value of land appreciates over time. In conclusion, after taking into consideration the standards set forth in section 5 of RA 8974, and the foregoing evidence and circumstances, the Court a ble and just that the compensation for the expropriated parcel of deeinat the time of the filing of the Complaint should Pe $28,000.00 per square meter, or a total of P8,000,000.00. 4 examination of the Replacement is that the cost estimates it has provided are reason to deviate therefrom, oneidering that defendants cid not present any contrary evidence In sum, the just compensation for the expropriated land is P8,000.00 per square meter or P8,000,000.00 for the entire 4,000 square-meter property, anc P9,724,273.50 for the improvements thereon, of @ total of P17,724,273.50. Since the plaintiff has already paid the amount of 14,124.273.50 to defendants, it has a remaining balance of 3,600,000.00, plus legal interest from the time of roperty, due for payment to the defendants In accordance with the recent decision of the Supreme ‘Court in Nacar vs. Gallery Frames,” as well as in Republic vs Court of Appeals,” the applicable interest rate for the palance of the just compensation due to the defendants six per cent (6%) per annum. in ackition, upon finality of the judgment, the total amount due, including interests, shall earn 6% interest ‘until full satisfaction of payment % Furthermore, in accordance with Section 4527 Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, the commissioners are each entitled to receive a compensation of 2300.00 per day for the time actually and necessarily employed in the performance of their duties and in making their report to the court, which fees Chal be taxed as a part of the casts of the proceedings The Court finds it just ‘and proper to award each of the commissioner 3,000.00 as expense chowenee for the performance of duties in addition to Wet feguiar duties and functions in their respective positions in the City Government. The amount shall be shouldered by plaintiff. - $ > Amneyes ‘D” and series of the Complaint, 1e0arcs, PP 16-41 2% GR No 169871, August 13, 2013 Bee ROT 122-423 (202), hed Sy v=, Loval Govemment of rh city. ER Ho. see kine 5. X13) See aiso Apo Feats Corporation vs, Land Bank of the Philppinies, GR No. 164195, Oclober 12, 2010. aca vs Gallery Fraime, a eee eee ees of commissioners. in eminent. domain preeeecinds The commssie appointed fo appraise fad sought to Be condemned for pub wees ‘accordance with these rite appointed 2Peive_ a compensabon ta be fixed by the endl of NoT LESS THAN THRE sal ee (7200.00) PESOS per day fr the time setally and necessarily employed in'the rormance of tir ues and i makita thelr report fo the SO. Which lees shall be taxed a8 a part of the costs of the proceedings. 2a otc vs. Heirs of Spouses Battista, GR No: 161248; January 28, 2013, Land Bank of the phappines vs Nable, GR No. 176892, June 27, 20124 CIVIL CASE NO, 56-V-13 8 WHEREFORE, the Court fereby FIXES the: just compensencr for the defendants’ expropriated properly covered by ‘ranstes Centificate of Titie No. V- 34450 at P6,000.00 per square meter or a total of 8,000,000.00, and the replacement its improvements at P9,724,273:50 Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to pay defendants the remaining balance of she jush Compensation inthe enount of 3:600:000.00, wih interes" at the rate of 6% per annum computed from the time of the taking ‘of the property until full payment or finality of the judgment, whichever Sons first, Upon finality of the judgment, the total amount due, jincluding interests, shall be subject to 6% imerest per annum until full satisfaction. on the other haid, are hereby DIRECTED to present He Owner's cate of TCT No. ¥-34450 to the Register ‘of Deeds of Valenzuela ity, which in tum is DIRECTED, upon. payment by defendants “of the corresponding capital gains ‘tam, 10 cancel said title and issue, 1 heu tnerect, 3 new transfer certificate of title under the name of plaintiff Republic. of the Phitippines. piaintif is further directed to pay the. commissioners expense alr, in the amount of P3,000.00 each, plus 6% interest per anim from finality of the judgment until full satisfaction: SO ORDERED Valenzuela City, April 8, 2085 ft EMMA C. MATAMMU Presiding Judgeoc way py adi pS mAWy yran7 Na ait Gua e ai a4 8S