Republic v De Castelvi

G.R. No. L-20620 August 15, 1974

The respondent owned a parcel of land situated in San Jose, Floridablanca, Pampanga. It entered into a
year-to-year contract of lease with the AFP in 1947. But in 1956, she told AFP that she would not
renew the contract and demanded them to vacate. Despite several demands, it did not vacate the
property and instead initiated expropriation proceedings against her. They contended the fair market
value of the land was at Php 0.02 per square meter, the value at the time they entered the property in
1947, while respondent argued it was Php 15.00 per square meter.

AFP based its assessment on the alleged provision in their contract of lease which provided that the
AFP was granted the "right and privilege" to buy the property should the lessor wish to terminate the
lease, and that in the event of such sale, it was stipulated that the fair market value should be as of the
time of occupancy.

On the other hand, respondent argued that the FMV cannot be the value at the time of occupancy
because at that time, there was no ‘taking’ yet. She argued that the 2 elements of taking--(1) that the
entrance and occupation by the condemnor must be for a permanent, or indefinite period, and (2) that in
devoting the property to public use the owner was ousted from the property and deprived of its
beneficial use, were not present when the Republic entered and occupied her property in 1947.

The Commissioner appointed by the Court pegged the FMV at Php 10.00 per sqm. AFP appealed.

Whether or not there was taking in 1947 and hence should be the basis of the fair market value.

No, there was none. A number of circumstances must be present in the "taking" of property for
purposes of eminent domain.
1. The expropriator must enter a private property. This was present because by virtue of the
lease agreement the Republic, through the AFP, took possession of the property of Castellvi.
2. The entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period. This was
not present. The word "momentary" when applied to possession or occupancy of (real) property
should be construed to mean "a limited period" — not indefinite or permanent. The aforecited
lease contract was for a period of one year, renewable from year to year. The entry on the
property, under the lease, is temporary, and considered transitory. The fact that the Republic,
through the AFP, constructed some installations of a permanent nature does not alter the fact
that the entry into the land was transitory, or intended to last a year, although renewable from
year to year by consent of 'The owner of the land.
3. The entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority. This was
present because the Republic entered the Castellvi property as lessee.
4. The property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected. This was present because because the property was used by the air force
of the AFP.
5. The utilization of the 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. This was not present. In the
instant case, the entry of the Republic into the property and its utilization of the same for public
use did not oust Castellvi and deprive her of all beneficial enjoyment of the property. Castellvi
remained as owner, and was continuously recognized as owner by the Republic, as shown by
the renewal of the lease contract from year to year, and by the provision in the lease contract
whereby the Republic undertook to return the property to Castellvi when the lease was
terminated. It was only in 1959 when the petitioner filed for complaint for expropriation
proceedings that Castellvi was ousted as owner.