ARTICLE 3 SECTION 9
Republic: that price be paid for lands be fixed at
CASE 1 OF 13
REPUBLIC OF THE PH vs. VDA DE CASTELLVI
FACTS:
REPUBLIC: filed a complaint for eminent domain against defendant-
appellee Carmen vda de Castellvi who is the judicial administratrix of
the estate of the late Alfonso de Castellvi over a parcel of land, and
against defendant-appellee Maria Toledo-Gozun over two parcels of
land
a. Republic alleged that fair market value of lands was
not more than P2k per hectare, or a total market
value of P259,669.10
b. Also prayed that court authorize plaintiff to take
immediate possession of lands upon deposit of
amount with the Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga
c. + that court appoints 3 commissioners to ascertain
and report to court the just compensation for
property sought to be expropriated
d. + that court issue final order of condemnation
2. CASTELLVI: residential land had a fair market value of
P15/m2 and that Republic, through AFP (particularly the Air
Force), had been illegally occupying her property, thereby
preventing her from using and disposing of it
a. Prayed that complaint be dismissed or that
Republic be ordered to pay P15/m2 + interest at
6%/yr
b. + that Republic be ordered to pay her P5M as
unrealized profits + costs of suit
3. (A bunch of people intervened as party-defendant, including
Toledo-Gozun)
4. Republic deposited with Provincial Treasurer amount of
P259,669.10 and the trial court ordered that Republic be
placed in possession of lands
5. TOLEDO-GOZUN (Motion to Dismiss):
a. that her 2 parcels of land were residential lands and
that a portion had already been subdivided into
different lots for sale to the general public and the
remaining portion had already been set aside for
expansion sites of the already completed
subdivisions
b. that the fair market value of lands was P15/m2
c. prayed that complaint be dismissed or that she be
paid for the P15/m2 + interest at 6%/yr + attorney’s
fees in amount of P50k
6. Trial court authorized Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga to
pay Toledo-Gozun P107,609 as provincial value of her land,
and P151,859.80 to Castellvi as provincial value of land under
her administration
a. Also appointed 3 commissioners for the defendants
who later submitted their reports and
recommendations wherein,
i. after determining that lands were
residential lands, the recommended
lowest price to be paid was P10/m2 for
both lands.
ii. That Toledo-Gozun be paid addt’l P5k
for improvements on land
iii. Legal interest on compensation be paid
after deducting amounts already paid to
the owners
iv. No consequential damages
7. All parties objected to the report (lmao)
a. Castellvi + Toledo-Gozun: insist that fair mkt value
be P15/m2.
b.
P0.20/m2.
8. TRIAL COURT:
a. That the P10/m2 recommendation was fair and just
b. That plaintiff will pay 6% interest on total value of
lands
i. To Toledo-Gozun because the amount
deposited as provisional value until full
payment is made to said defendant or
deposit therefor is made in court
ii. To Castellvi from when plaintiff
commenced its illegal possession of land
when the instant action had not yet been
commenced to when the provisional
value thereof was deposited in court
9. Republic: motion for new trial + MR on grounds of newly-
discovered evidence (denied)
ISSUES:
1. W/N erred in holding the “taking” of property under
expropriation commenced with the filing of this action NO
2. W/N lower court erred in finding P10/m2 as just compensation
YES
3. W/N erred in ordering plaintiff-appellant to pay 6% interest
on adjudged value of Castellvi property to start from
plaintiff’s “commenced illegal possession” YES
4. W/N erred in denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for new
trial NO
RULING:
1. TAKING OF PROPERTY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO
HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN 1947 WHEN REPUBLIC
COMMENCED TO OCCUPY PROPERTY AS LESSEE BUT
RATHER WHEN IT WAS PLACED IN POSSESSION BY
AUTHORITY OF COURT IN 1959 (WHEN COMPLAINT
FOR EMINENT DOMAIN FILED)
a. CONTEXT: Castellvi property had been occupied
by Air Force since 1947 under a contract of lease
which duly stipulated that the foregoing contract of
lease is similar in terms and conditions, including
the date, with the annual contracts entered into
from year to year between said parties. HOWEVER,
before the expiration of contract of lease on June
1956, Republic sought to renew same but Castellvi
refused.
i. Undisputed that Republic occupied said
land from July 1947 by virtue of said
contract on a year-to-year basis under the
terms and conditions therein stated.
ii. Castellvi wrote to Chief of Staff of AFP
that the heirs of the property had decided
NOT to continue leasing property
because they had decided to subdivide
the land for sale to the general public,
demanding they vacate within 40 days
iii. Castellvi sought to eject them via suit in
CFI but while ejectment case pending,
Republic instituted expropriation
proceedings, and was placed in
possessions of the lands
A. HOWEVER, ejectment case
eventually got dismissed
because plaintiff has already
signed an agreement with
defendants, whereby she has
agreed to receive the rent of
 the land from Jun 1956 when
contract of lease expired to
1959 when Air Force was
placed in possession by virtue
of Court order upon deposit of
provisional amount
b. REPUBLIC: that “taking” of property should be
deemed as of 1947 by virtue of lease agreement
c. HOWEVER, NUMBER OF CIRCUMSTANCES
MUST BE PRESENT IN “TAKING” OF
PROPERTY FOR PURPOSE OF EMINENT
DOMAIN
i. Expropriation must enter a private
property (present)
ii. Entrance into private property must be
for more than momentary period
(ABSENT)
A. Lease contract was for year-to-
year basis, making it
temporary and transitory
despite installations of
permanent nature by Republic
(terms of contract > intent of
lessee) since it required
renewal after every year
iii. Entry into property should be under
warrant or color of legal authority
(present because Republic entered
property as lessee)
iv. Property must be devoted to a public use
or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected (present because
property was used by air force)
v. Utilization of property for public use
must be in such a way as to oust the
owner and deprive him of all beneficial
enjoyment of the property (ABSENT)
A. Castellvi remained as owner
and continuously recognized
as owner by Republic (as
shown by yearly renewal of
contract + provision whereby
Republic undertook to return
property when lease
terminated)
B. Neither was Castellvi
deprived of all beneficial
enjoyment of property
(Republic paid monthly
rentals until the time when it
filed complaint for eminent
domain in 1959)
d. NOTE:
i. year to year lease cannot give rise to a
permanent right to occupy despite
Republic’s contention to such
ii. Neither can it be said that right to
eminent domain may be exercised by
simply leasing premises to be
expropriated
iii. Nor can it be accepted that Republic
would enter into a contract of lease
where its real intent was to buy, OR
WHY THE REPUBLIC SHOULD ENTER
INTO A SIMULATED CONTRACT OF
LEASE WHEN ALL THIS TIME THE
REPUBLIC HAD THE RIGHT OF
EMINENT DOMAIN AND COULD
EXPROPRIATE LAND IF IT WANTED
TO WITHOUT RESORTING TO ANY
GUISE (bitch)
iv. Neither can we see how right to buy
could be merged in a contract of lease in
absence of any agreement between
parties to that effect
v. Obviously a deceptive scheme, which
would have the effect of depriving the
owner of property of its true and fair
market value at the time when
expropriation proceedings were actually
instituted in court.
e. Expressly agreed in lease agreement that should the
lessor require lessee to return the premises in the
same condition as at the time the same was first
occupied by AFP, the lessee would have the “right
and privilege” (i.e. option) of paying the lessor
what it would fairly cost to put the premises in
same condition as it was at the commencement of
the lease.
i. Fair value @ occupancy =/= value of
property if bought
f. Same banana for Toledo-Gozun
2. INDEED RESIDENTIAL LANDS AND BUT P10/M2
BROUGHT DOWN TO P5/M2
a. There is evidence to prove that lands in question
had ceased to be devoted to production of agri
crops and had become adaptable for residential
purposes even before the Republic filed the
complaint for eminent domain
b. CITY OF MANILA v. CORRALES: Guidelines in
determining value of property expropriated for
public purposes
i. Same considerations are to be regarded
as in a sale of property between private
parties
ii. A lot of circumstances need to be taken
into account but generally, we should say
that the compensation of owner is to be
estimated by reference to the use for
which property is suitable, having regard
to the existing business or wants of
community, or such as may be
reasonably expected in immediate future
c. Lower court’s finding supported by unanimous
opinion of commissioners and by Provincial
Appraisal Committee
i. Castellvi thought of subdividing land
into residential lots as early as July 1956
in her letter to the Chief of Staff of AFP
ii. Layout of subdivision plan tentatively
approved by national Planning
Commission (NPC) as early as Sept 1956
iii. Land had not been devoted to
agriculture since 1947
iv. In 1957, land was classified as residential
and taxes based on its classification as
residential had been paid since then
d. Same banana with Toledo-Gozun (BOTH DEFO
RESIDENTIAL LANDS)
e. RE QUESTION OF JUST COMPENSATION
 i. REPUBLIC P0.20/m2 basis: REPUBLIC v. i. Deed of absolute sale (1961) showing that
NARCISO certain Serafin Francisco had sold to
A. HOWEVER case no longer Pablo Narciso a parcel of sugar land
applies here because ii. Deed of sale of some 35,000m2 of land by
a. Owners in case had spouses Evelyn Laird and Cornelio Laird
specifically asked in favor of spouses Bienveniedo Aguas
for P2,000 per and Josefina Aguas for P0.21/m2
hectare and Court iii. Deed of absolute sale of parcel of land for
said that owners of P0.09/m2 by Jesus Mendoza in favor of
land could not be Land Tenure Administration
given more than b. To warrant grant of new trial, must appear that
what they had asked evidence was discovered AFTER THE TRIAL; that
for notwithstanding even with exercise of due diligence, evidence could
recommendation of not have been discovered and produced at the trial
Commission on and that evidence is of such nature as to alter the
Appraisal that it result of the case if admitted
should be P3,000 per c. Even gratia argumenti, “that lands mentioned were
hectare residential, evidence would still not warrant grant
b. P0.20/m2 was of new trial for said evidence could have been
considered the fair discovered and produced at the trial and cannot be
market value of considered NEWLY DISCOVERED evidence”
lands as of 1949 and
at the time they
were classified as
sugar lands
ii. As of present case (1959), land of
Castellvi assessed at P1/m2
iii. Should be noted as well that the amount
fixed as PROVISIONAL VALUE OF
LANDS that are being expropriated does
NOT necessarily represent the true and
correct value of the land
A. MOREOVER, altho Provincial
Appraisal Committee via
RESO #5 (1957) recommended
sum of P0.20 as fair valuation,
it was later repealed by RESO
#10 (1959) and increased to
P1.50
iv. After studying the records and evidence,
and after considering the circumstances
attending lands in question, court
decided P10 was too high and considered
the view that P5/m2 would be fair
valuation and would constitute just
compensation to owners

3. REPUBLIC SHOULD PAY INTEREST AT 6% ON VALUE

OF LAND MINUS THE PROVISIONAL VALUE THAT
WAS DEPOSITED ONLY FROM JULY 1959 WHEN IT
WAS DEPOSITED IN COURT THE PROVISIONAL
VALUE OF THE LAND
a. Must be noted that if Castellvi had agreed to receive
the rentals from June 1956 to Aug 1959, she should
be considered as having allowed her land to be
leased to the Republic and she could not at the same
time be entitled to payment of interest during same
period

4. “NEW EVIDENCE” ALL IMMATERIAL AND

IRRELEVANT BECAUSE SALES COVERED
SUGARLANDS WITH SUGAR QUOTAS WHILE THE
LANDS SOUGHT TO BE EXPROPRIATED IN INSTANT
CASE WERE RESIDENTIAL
a. Alleged new evidence: