Chapter 6 EMINENT DOMAIN Definition and Scope WHERE PRIVATE property is needed for conversion to gome public use, the first thing obviously that the gev- ernment should do is to offer to buy it! If the owner Is willing to sell and the parties can agree an the price and the other conditions of the salo, a voluntary transaction ean then be concluded and the transfer effected without the necessity of judicial action. But if the owner of the private property ia unwilling to part with it, or, being willing, cannot agree to the conditions of the transfer, then it will be necessary for the government to use its coercive authority. By its power of eminent domain, it can then, upon payment of just. compensation, forcibly acquire the needed property in order to devote it to the intended public use. Also called the power of expropriation, eminent dao- main is described aa “the highest and moat exact idea of property remaining in the government” that may be acquired for eome public purpose through a method “in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State.” Being inherent, the power of eminent domain does tot need io be specifically conferred on the government by the Constitulion. As it happens, however, it is x- "Noble v. City of Maniln, 67 Phil. 1. "Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., 616, 123coxstrTUTIONAL aw a0 My * graigle IIL. Section ® en Private presaly provided he taken for pee Loe bari fa er ahatl Fe con ia not & a perty shall Th provision ; a compensation? eer ng its negative and restrictive ‘a fimitadian of © clearly sugBes"*- . . ‘ Fi fangs smiting function is in keeping : the phi. This limi ma ights against the arbi ary 8Xer. losaphy of the By wers ta the detriment of individ. cise of governmental Pe function, the provision should alten raed gine ie exon and liberally in favor of the property owner, “The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether direstly by the State, or by its authorized agents, is neressarily in derogation of private rights, and the rute in that case is that the authority must be strictly construed. No species of property is held by in- dividuals with greater tenacity, and none is guarded by the Constitution and laws more sedulously, than the right to the freehold of inhabitants, When the legisia- lure interferes with that right and, for greater public Boone mua the land of an individual without enlarged by doubtful interne af we law should not b rpretation.’ Who May Exercise The Power of amy the national leprey ent domai + legislature, but © other govern m: e : ie ~ OFboration, Corporat ions servi Tain is lodged primarily" its exercise may be validly ental entities and, in ft 3, like the so-called que" E essential public needs “EMINENT DOMAIN 13 operating public utilities. Under existing laws, the fol- Jowing May exercise the power of. expropriation: {1) The Congress. (2} The President of the Philippines. (3) The various local legislative bodies. (4) Certain public corporations, like the National Housing Authority aad water districts.’ (5) Quasi-public corporations like the Philippine National Railways, the Philippine Lang Distance Tele- phone Co. and the Meralco. The exsuntial requisites for the exercise by a focal government unit of the power of expropriation are the enactment of an ordinance (basically a law, which passes through three readings, which is general and permanent in character), and not a resolution (which need not go through three readings, unless otherwise decided by a majority of the lawtnakers; is temporary and is merely a declaration of sentiment or epinion of the law-making body); it must be for 9 public use, pur- pose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless; the payment of just compensation; and its ex- ercise must be preceded by a valid and definite offer made to the owner, whe rejects the game, Before a loca} government unit may enter into the possession of the property sought to be expropriated, it must (1) file a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance in the proper court and (2) deposit joy Water District ¥. J. King and Sons Com- * Merropalitan Ce : Lae HRT SERA ISS hoo ped132 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW with the aaid court at least 16% of the pro market value based on its current tax deola; iaw does not make the determination of a pose a condition precedent to the issuance posseasion.” * TAtion, fi, Public bu, ofa wri, (1) Destruction from Necessity Distinction should be made between eminent a, Main and destruction from necessity in that the Tate may be validly undertaken even by private individual This is not allowed in the case of eminent domain, The leading authority on this point ia American Print Werk; vu. Lawrence, where the mayor of New York was sued bi: damages by the owner of a building which he had o- dered biasted to stay the great fire of 1853. Rejectics the plaintiffs contention that there was here an expr- priation for which he was entitled to payment of jut compensation, the U.S, Supreme Court declared in par. The destruction of the property in question does nat oo under the right of eminent domain, but under the right oe sity, of solf-preservation. The right of eminent damain is aA" right; it arises [rom the lawe of society and ig veated in the or its grantee, acting under the right and power of the sunt benefit ofthe state, or those acting under it. The right nrigvs under the laws of soeiety or society iteelf. Tt is tie OF, self-definse, of self-preservation, whether apptied to pers we property. It is o private right vested in every individual. ro which the eight ol the state ar ytate necearity has notte es son fe Additionally, it will be noted that destrach? i necessity Cannot require the conversion of the prEINECS DIRT AL SE Wa ken to public use, nor is there ment of fuet compensation, any need for the pay- Necessity of Exercise Questiona of necessity or wiedo: 4 fitieal when decided by the nate legen ane a usually not subject to judicial review, Where, for exam- ple, the lawmeking body decides to establish a public playground and expropriates private property for the purpose, the owner cannot argue Lhat the playground is pot necessary or that, assuming its necessity, it is better that the project be laid on some other site, These are matters Lhat the national legislature can decide alone in ita diacretion. ‘The legislature, in providing for the exercise of the power of eminent domain, may directly determine the necessity for appro printing private property for a particular improvement for public use, and it may select the exact location of the improvement. In auch 9 case, it is well settled that the utility of Lhe gropased im- yJeovement, the extent af the public necessity for its construction, the expediency of constructing it, the suitableness of the location seloctad and the consequent necessity of taking the land selected dy ite site, are all questions exclusively for the Tegisiature to de- termine, and the courts have no power to interfere, or to subati- tube their own views for thoee of the representatives of the peo- ple! But where these questions are decided by a dele- fale only of the national legislature, the Supreme Court hus adopted a more censorious attitude. Conformably to the ryle that the power of eminent domain should be interpreted liberally in favor of the private property owher, the judiciary has asaumed the power to inquire into whether the authority conferred upon such delegate oe ieee Laera. 1a ied by it, Thy, been correctly ov properly exerci yi i ws fevubes looking inte whether the expropriation content plated by the delegate is necessary oF wise. Phus, in Republic of the Philppiaes vb. La Orden, é PP. Renedictinos de Filipinas,” the President of tho Phi ippines ordered the expropriation of a portion of y,, property ef the defendant along Mendiola street in Ny. nila for the extension of Azcarraga (now Recto sires The defendant moved to dismisa on the grounds inje, afin that: (1) there was no necessity for the proposed expropriation; and (2) the proposed Azcarrage Extension could pass through a different site which would eataij Jess expense to the government and would not necessi. tate the expropriation of property devoted to education. The trial court granted the motion, holding that the expropriation was “not of extreme necessity,” and the government appealed. Ruling on the decision a qua, the Supreme Court declared in part: Private property may be expropriated for pubtic use and upon payment of just componsation: condemnation ef property justified only Hf it ia for the public good and there is genuine ne ceasity therefor of a public character. Consequently, the cours have the pawer to inquire inta the legality of the right of eminent domain nod to determine whether or not there in a genuine nee aaty therefor. ie does not need extended argument to show that whetft ot hot the propased opening of the Azcarmaga extension ia a ne™" wity in order to relieve the daily congestion of traific on Leet"! Street is 2 question of fact dependent pot onty upon the fael® : whith the trial court very liberally tock judicial notice fut a other facts thot do not appear of record and must, thervfeo fatabluhed by means of evidence, The parties ahiould hare i wivea sn opportunity to prewent their reapactive evident these facts vind others that might be uf direet ar indinet MP 4 Uecomang hic emitEMINENT DOMAIN 136 to open the extension of Azcatrags Stevet to ease tl caffe congestion on Laganda Sire corel enter: the In the earlier care of City of Manila uv Chinese Community. the plaintiff asught te exproprinte 9 por- on of 8 private cemetery for canversion into an exten- sion of Rizal Avenue. On the dutendants’ claim that the expropriation was not necessary, the Supreme Court had the fallowing to say: The general power to exercise the right of eminent domain aust not be confused with the right te exercise iL ina particular case. The powcr of the legislature to confer, upen municipal cor- porations and other entities within the State, general authority to exerci#e the righl of erainent domain cannot be questioned by eourts, but that general nutharity of municipalities or enuities must not be confused with the right ¢o exercise it in particular in- stancea, The moment the muninpal corporation or entity ob- temple iv exercisy the authority conferred. it must comply with the conditions accompanying the authority. The necessity for con- fering the authority upon a municipal corporation i exercise the right of emineat domain in admituedly within Lae puwer of the leg- jalature. But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity Lt exercising the right in a particular ease under the conditions im- posed by the general uuthorily, ie a question which the courts have the right to inquire inte. Every expropriation proceeding has two stages. The first focuses on the determination of the validity of the expropriation. The second pertains to the determination oF just compensation. It has accordingly been ruled that the determination of the necessity of an expropriation is §justiciable question which can only be resolved during the first stage of an expropriation proceeding. A claim that the expropriated property is too amall to be consid- fred for public use can only be resalved during thatCONSTITUTIONAL Law \ 136 1 Once the State decides te sereee ite Bowe, of eminent demain, the power petro left to a Conte, Jimited in scope, and the courts wi a etermin, the appropriate amount of just compensation to be |, i to the affected landowners. Only when the landowne, are not given their just compensation for the talkip, ‘ their praperty or when there has been no agreemen: ., the amount of just compensation may the Temedy yf prohibition become available.” A court 8 determination of just compensation may be set aside if tainted With grave abuse of discretion." stage. Private Property Anything that can come under the dominion of man is subject to expropriation. This will include real and personal, tangible and intangible properties. A franchise is a property right and may therefore be expropriated. Churches and other retigious Properties are likewise ex Propriable notwithstanding the principle of separations of Church and State. And while it has been said that the wheels of commerce must stop at the grave, even cem leries may when necessary be taken under the power eminent domain. ; The only exceptions to this rule are money and a €3 EN action. Expropriation of money would be @ * catae of the requirement for the payment of I act beta Ea Aa eomnpensation, usually also in money. A chose in action ae personal right not reduced into possession but re- rable by a suit at law, a right to receive, demand or er a debt, demand or damages on a cause of action ex contract OF for a tort or omission of duty.” It is ea- sentially conjectural both as to its validity and its value. Property already devoted to public use is still sub- ject expropriation, provided this is dane directly by the national legislature or under a specific grant of au- thority to the delegate. A mere general authority may not suffice. In such a case the courts will have authority te inquire into the necessity of the expropriation and, finding none, refuse to allow it. Thus, in the Chinese Community Case," the Supreme Court declared: To disturb the morta! remains of those endeared to ua in Ife sometimes becomes the aad duty of the living, but except in cases of necessity, or for laudable purposes, the sanctity of the grave, the lnat resting place of our friends, should be main- tained, and the preventive aid of the courts should be invoked. for that object, xx x In the present case, even granting thet a necessity exists for the opening of the street in question, the record contains no proof of the need of opening the same through the cemetery. The record shows that adjoining and ad- jecent landa have been offered to the city free of charge, which will answer every purpose of the plaintiff. It should be noted in this connection that. under Presidential Decree 1472, land, whether tenanted or hot, acquired by the National Housing Authority for its using and resettlement programs are considered ex- “Mpt from land reform.”sbtie of the Philippines y red embraced in the pny, ing under the power nf copt of property nay ee the right of the By. exunent farnain At nan to demand intereonneetian peau of Tedecormunicm Telephone Syatom und that of berween the Government er could make ube of the tbe PLDT, so that the he PLDT. The Supreme Coun Lines and facitities af ¢ e vsctiona to this arrange. overruled the defendant's abi ment, balding as follows: coerced to enter inte A con. oat ee pet a ieuere them. But we must prt oetinnk the inet that the Republic, in the exercise of the avery peace of caunent domaun, hey require the telephone company fo permit ¢nfercunnection of the Government Tele phone Syvteth and thac of PLOT. ag the needs of the gayern- inet eerie tay Mequirn, subject to the payment. of just com. pronabie to he determuned by the court. Nornially, of course, the power of eminent domain results 48 the Lalang or sppropriation of title to, and Possession of. the fprownaied property, but no cogent reason appears why sad power mas fot be availed of to impose only a burden upon the ene W oondemned peoperty, without log of tinh ses: fon Tt umjuestonable Pe a progr that real Property may, through et ‘ua it ovine tv an easement of right of way. The Bertin betwwen, athen snd services ty allow interservive cou Mlephone eyetems ix ant much difierent case of Rep erre conside! 00 public uwnership wper MPO ih ne reson why 4 ata" t cen 6 render Services an the Ren" Petvation iw paid therete, OE the - N telephone “MHerenonecting service wutlld oe PX te That thee goon Medics teen EE OF baat ry Kor would bm feopEMINENT boy 138 A similar ruling was made i 8 in Philippine ia- rqnee Telep Hone Cos v. National Teena Commission, where the PLDT was required wt tar connect with a private communications company. me Finally, it should be o| gubject of expropriation must tate dineee Progeny tion wholesome, as it is intended to be devoted a nabs lie use. In this respect, as previously remarked, it difers from property taken under the police power, which is sought to be destroyed because it ie noxious or intended for a noxious purpose. Taking Taking, as the term is commonly understood, im- ports 8 physical dispossession of the owner, ag when he js ousted from hie land or relieved of hia watch or his car and ia thus deprived of all beneficial use and enjoyment of his property. In law, however, the term has a broader connotation. Taking may inctude trespass without ac- tual eviction of the owner, material impairment af the value of the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property was intended. Where, for example, farmland is permanently ine undated because of the construction of a dam nearby, ing on the land is the owner who is prevented from planting © ®. entitled to compensation although be remains 15 posses- i 8 in US. ve Causby,” govern- Peano! oer a at such a low alti- ment planes fly over private prape tude as to practically touch the tops of the me siscont there would be such an intrusion into the super)140 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW rights of the owner aa to entitle him to payment, a compensation although egain there is no diveatiy, 4 title. it In Ayala de Roxas v. City of Manila.” it was hey that the imposition of an easement over a I-meter sin! of the plaintiff's property could not be legally done ont out payment to it of just compensation. And in thy oe of People v. Fajardo,” a municipal ordinance Prohibit, construction of any building that would destroy the view of the plaza from the highway was tonsidered g taking under the power of eminent domain that could FOL be allowed without payment of juat compensation to th owner affected. The right-of-way easement, resulting in the restric. tion or limitation on property rights over the land trav. ersed by transmission lines, according to Nationa! Power Corporation v. Aguirre-Paderanga,” also fall within the ambit of the term “expropriation.” “While it may be true that the transmission lines merely pass over the affected properties, the eascmert imposes the additional limitation that the landowne* are prohibited from constructing any improvements # planting any trees that exceed three (3) meters withia ‘he aerial right of way area, This prohibition cleatly ‘Méerleres with the landowners’ right to possess =” cayoy their properties i Teun, ay easement of a right of way transmits no rights on ‘easement iteelfl and respondent retains full ownersBURL Lak the propert: yy. The acquisition of such 5 ecasmment is, nevertho- Jean, nit gratis. AS correctly obecrved by the CA, G wonaideril the nature and the effect of the inatalintion power lace “ihe Jimitmtions on the une of the land for an indefinite period would deprive reapondent ef normnl une of the property. Por thia ree aon, the tetter ie entitled to payment of a just compensation which must neither tore nor tess th , qquivatent of tha land.” ne WAS tenet Nevertheless, not every taking is compensable, as it may be justified under the police power, For instance, # auilding on the verge of collapse may be ordered demol- ished in the interest of public safety, and the owner will not be entitled to payment for the loss he has sustained even if he has been completely deprived of his property. ‘a street is closed for repairs and all the business es- blishments thereon suffer considerable loss as a re- cult, the owners cannot claim that there has been as to jem a compensable taking because of the diminution in ‘he value of their property. The same principle will ap- iy if, say, a railroad company is allowed to operate ong a atreet, resulting in the depreciation of the prop- ries thereon because of the smoke, soot, gases, noise, inders and vibrations caused by the passing trains. There is in these cases a valid exercise of the police .wer aimed at improving the general welfare, and iatever damages are sustained by the property owners «regarded as merely incidental to a proper exertion of h power, The losses sustained are in the nature of ninum absque injuria, The only recompense available che owners is the altruistic feeling that they have “whew, by their sacrifice, contributed to the well- Sap e A ae142 CONSTITUTIONAL Law This rule is valid as tong aa the ej udi by the individual property owner ig ene Milter, with the rest of the community. Conversely, ithe, Thy more than his aliquot part of the damages, thay special injury over and above that sustained bY the” ® of the community, he will be entitled to Payment corresponding compensation. ft Thus, in Richards v. Washington Terminal” itwe shown that an exhaust fan installed in a tunne) tone, it of smoke after the passage of trains through jt the, most of the smoke directly into the house of the peti tioner, which thus sustained more than the damag. incurred by the other houses in the vicinity. The us Supreme Court held that there was as to Richards ; taking under the power of eminent domain for which i: was entitled to just compensation. The construction of a tunnel underneath land bs likewise been considered as taking.” “Indeed, the expr priator’s action may be short of acquisition of till physical possession, or occupancy but may stil! amou’ ta a taking. Compensable taking includes destructics restriction, diminution, or interruption of the rights” ownership or of the common and necessary use and = Joyment of the property in a lawful manner, lessen?’ destroying its value. It is neither necessary tet !" owner be wholly deprived of the use of his propett?: is valerial whether the property is removed from ie evasion of the owner, or in any respect changes handEMINENT nostain a As discussed cartier, an pedi 2 pemeteries (9 TPSerVe A na af their Peete parks for paupers has been considered a taking which gould require payment of just COMpensation, a 7 : exercise of the police power.” So would an off a i: os pibst mall owners from collecting parking fees fram their customers who use their parking lots.” An cedinenee imposing & setback requirement for walls to provide for more parking spaces which the general public may use for free has likewise been considered as an exereise of the power of eminent domain, which may not be done without just compensation.” To be sure, it is not always easy to distinguish be- tween taking under the police power and taking under the power of expropriation. Jurists have differed sharply on this matter. Suppose, for example, a law were to pro- hubit the construction of buildings beyond a certain height for reasons of public safety. Would this be an eerase of the police power, or could the owners tenably aim that there is a taking of the airspace over their fand, which is as much a part of their property as the surface rights? There is as yet, unfortunately, no cate- gorieal criterion to be applied in answering difficult questions of this nature. For instance, it has been discussed that a law re quiring business establishments to provide senior citi zens with a twenty percent discount on its products or services has been considered by the Supreme Court oF 8 exercise of the police power and not of the power 9 TRA TAS Bs aigrae CONSTITUTIONAL LAW eminent domain notwithatanding the TemBuny ‘ tention that it results in a deprivation or diminyy; Cn property, by way of profits.” Thus — a4 The law ia a legitinuice exorcise of pallce powoy which, to the power of eminent denwin, has goneral wolfine Mi, ject. Police power in not capable of nn axnet, dalinition, itt been purposely veiled in Reneral forma to undernegr, ie hae prehensivencss to meet all exigencies and provide ann for an efficient and flexible response to cunditions ang wa stanees, thua assuring the greatest benefits, (Sang Na, 440, GR. No. 71168, August 25, 1989, 176 SCRA Ty MW ingly, it has been described ps “the most essential, inet and the least Hmitable of powers, extending os it dooy tall great public needa.” (Ermita-Ma/late Hotel and Mate: Oper, Association, Ine. u. Clty Mayor of Manila, 1-24693, Jyjy x 1967, 20 SCRA 849 citing Nodle State Bank v. Haskell 71, U.S. 412 (19110) It is “tthe powar vested in the legistowun the constitution to make, ordain, and establish all Taanites ¢ wholesome and reasonable laws. statutes, and ordinances, y, ther with penalties or without, not repugmant to the TOMsLi: tion, ns they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of ty commonwealth, and of the aubjects of the same.” WS. ; Toribio, 15 Phil. 85 (1910) citing Commonwealth u. Alger. Oush.. 53 (Masa, 1851); U.S. v. Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245, 25235 (1915) For this reason, when the conditions eo demand aa detec: by the legislature, property rights must bow to the pri palice power because praperty rights, though sheltered by + process, must yield to general welfare. (Alatayan v. vet Powwr Corporation, 24 Phil. 17211963 Police power aa an attribute to promote the comms : would be diluted considerably if on the mere plea cf petit” that they will suffer loss of earnings and capital. the w Manila Mem me i: ply arial Park. Ine, v Secretary of eosin Dy eae? aeEST'L DCMLAIN 145 a signed provision in inyalj evidence demonstrating the ae gree an, the) absensesot provision in question, there ia no hase eee affect of the Jiew of the presumption of validity hes ite nullification in favor. (Ic) every tnw Tas in ite Given theve. it is incorrect for petitioners to insist that th grant af the senior citizen discount is unduly oppressive to their business. because petitioners have not taken time to cal- culate correctly and come up with a financial report, 60 that they have not been able to show properly whether or not the tax deduction scheme really works greatly to their disadvan: lage. (The person who impugns the validity of a mtatue must aave personal interest in the case such that he hes sustained, or will awstain, direet injury asa result of its enforcement — People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 66 [1987}) at Moreover, the right to property has a social dimension. While Article XITI] of the Constitution provides the precept for the protection of property, various laws and jurisprudence, particu- lerly on agrarian reform and the regulation of contracts and public utilities, cantinuously serve as 9 reminder that the right to property can be relinquished upon the command of the State for the promotion of public good. Undeniably, the success of the senior citizens program res!- largely on the support impsrted by petitioners and the othr private establishments concerned. This being the case, te means employed in invoking the active participation ee vate sector, in order to achieve the purpose ie oe te law, is reasonably and directly related. Without sufficient pre ais 957 ia arbitrary. and that te that Section dia) of R.A. No. tae would be uncanscivn. : : he n continued implementation aft i feaia’ Eni bly detrimental to petitioners, the Court will re ing a bepislative actCUNSTITE EES aE TAM 146 it ja beeh to remember that, ACEI Tey, i," the requiaites of taking in ae ql follows: At any rate, to Republic v. Cast nant domain ary 0s (lt The expropriator mua orty. 12) The ontry must be for more than o Momentary enter @ private try period. (2) The entry must be under warrant or color yy legal authority. id) The property must be devoted to public use ye otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously yy. fected, 15) The utilization of the property for public us quat be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property. In this case, the government had rented and started occupying # parcel of land in 1947 and, when the awner refused to continue extending the Jease, com menced exprupriation proceedings in 1959. As the pror erty was supposed to be assessed for purposes of j= compengation from ihe time of the taking, the gover ment argued that it should be deemed to have taken thé same in 1947, when the lease commenced, and not" 1959 whan the proceedings were begun. The Supreme Court, applying the above criteria, held as follows: ery fy Nita therofure, that tbe taking of Crstell* pt have kes cine af eral te domain cannot be gonside! cupy the ne a 7 when the Republic comune on ten! Sion as lease therrat. We find merit an 0 0 : , Stint twei pew athe ied dome maki! =EMINENT DoAIAIN 1a? niranee and the een a ie by the condeaimor avast be for 9 ee Ui caiblig use ee find 121 that un devoting the > te public use the awaer sae onated ! y and deprived of ict beneficial use, were pot aa ie Republic catered and occupied the Castells property in 1947. In has also been held that mere notice af the inten- rien to expropriate @ particular property does not bind ag owner and inhibit him fram disposing of it or ather- wise dealing with it, Such a notice will not justify im- mediate taking.” Neither will the mere passage of an ordinance authorizing expropriation. The expropriator ran enter the said preperty only after expropriation proceedings are actually commenced and the deposit required by law is duty made. Taking occurs when the landowner is deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such a8 when the title is transferred to the Republic.” Taking also occurs when agricultural lands are voluntarily offered by 3 landowner and approved by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council for coverage under che Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program coverage through & stock distribution scheme.” * Peaple v. Fajards. sapra- . a. egy. Livives, GB. No. 170688, Land Bank of the Philippines © Livineo. 68 September 22. 2010, 621 SCRA BE: ace al60 Land Bank of the ed pines «. Heirs of Salvador Encinas, G-R. No, T@I7ah, April 18, 2012, Fr SCRA ce ob, ciring Land Bank of the PRainnies Deparient of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 171440. April 4. aon : ae ae8 188, Land Bank of the Philippines yy Imperial. 34 bt ee + QT AV Se RA ago: Gabara ¥ Land Bank of the Philippines. © : A dao: Gi i ! Ra TA ebay Las. G RB. Nea. Pty Beuk ofCONSTITUTIONAL AY 148 owner does nat need to A), f just compensation with m4 Furthermore. hae i ii pr recov Comission i Audit if the government sakes over property and devotes it to public use a oul benery tt expropriation. As held in Arigable b. Cuenct,” he m, immediately file a complaint with the proper enyy ;,, payment of hia property as the arbitrary action of 4 government shall be deemed a waiver of its immuyiy, fram suit. it bears reiteration that, in City Governmen af Quezon City v. Bricta,” the petitioner contended thay a, ordinance requiring private cemeteries te reserve §° 4; their total areas for the burial of paupers wars a vals exercise of the police power under the general welfa clause. The Supreme Court disagreed, observing thu: property taken under the police power is sought to b destroyed and nat, as in this case, to be devoted ua public use. There was here a taking of private property for public uge but without payment of just compensativ:. in vislation of the principles governing eminent demac “The ordinance is actually a taking without compen? tion of a certain area from a private cemetery to ben Paupers who are charges of the munictpal corporate It further declared, “instead of building or maintain ee femetery for this purpose, the city passe! ™ O private cemeteries.” In Philippine Press Institute e. Commission on B& fans,” the Supreme Court declared as unconatitane™ gee ltusin of the respondent electoral body direct? ewsPapers to provide free Comelee space of Tt. than one-half Page for the common meta poticienl reEMINENT La aN OMALN 149 yes and candidates. Through Justice FoNciano, it held jater atin that the compulsory “donation” was meat me ofprivate property without payment of the just compen gation required im expropriation cages. Morenver ve sespondent had tot established the necessity of the tak ing. considering that the newspapers were not unwilling to sell advertising space, let alone its own authority to exercise the power of eminent domain. Public Use Public se, as traditionally understood, means any use directly available to the general public ag a matter of right and not merely of forbearance or accommoda- tim. Where the expropriated property is converted inte, say, a plaze—or a park, or an airfield, or a highway—it thereby becomes res communes and, as such, is subject ta direct enjoyment by any and all members of the pub- lic indiscriminately, There will also be a public use in- volved even if the expropriated praperty is not actually acquired by the government but is merely devoted te public services administered by privately-owned public Utilities like telephone or light companies.” The reason is that such services are demandable as 4 matter of right by any one prepared to pay for then. It does not matter whether the ae uae of ee. i 7 i for free or for a fee. labo property by ue mal 2 ber of the genera! e important thing is that any mem Sublic, as such, can demand the right to use the can- verted property for fis direct and personal convenience. This original meaning of the phrase has now been . ji § avail- broadened to caver uses which, white ae antes Able ts the public. redeund to their ineCONSTITUTIONAL 1AM 150 mple would be the purpose ¢4, wiaion of the expropriated lang, ety. or benefit. An exa t cost to deserving citizens, ny, plated in the subdi smail jots for sale a! . 4, ance transferred, cease to be public ony The Tots. under the exclusive ownership of th transferees, The public cannot demand their USE ag | the case of a street; the private owners can in fac), the whole werld therefrom. Nevertheless, although ek vate individuals are Lhe direct beneficiaries of this 5,, ject, the requirement of public use is deemed satistiag because of the vicarious advantages enjoyed by the bey. ple as a whole. Among these is the promotion of sociay justice objectives like the mare equitable diffusion y praperty ownership, the undertaking of agrarian rp. forms, and the ealiancement of the dignity, welfare ang security of the underprivileged. The conversion of a slum area into a model housing community would directly benefit only thase fortunate enough to acquire dwellings in the homesite. Nonethe less. the people as a whole would profit indirectly from the elimination of many problems engendered in the slums, such as fire hazards, lack of proper sanitation. ugliness, disease, and the adverse effects of the sub human conditions in the place upon the slum-dweller = Suto s clearance is therefore now regarded # panded interpreea nn ProPtiation under the modera & Jon of public use." I i ‘ 1 Province of Camarines Sur uv, Court of Appeal the Suprem a wiagon: © Court held through Justice CamileEMINENT DOBLAIN 151 The expropriation of the property authorized by the ques- tioned resolution is for a public purpose. The cetablishaenn of a pilot development center would inure tu the direct beneGit and advantage of the people af the Province of Camarines Sur Once operational. the center would make evailable to the community invaluable information and technology on agricul- ture, fishery and the cottage industry. Ultimately, the liveii- ood of the farmers. fishermen and craftamen would be en- hanced. The housing project aiso satisfies the public purpose requirement of the Constitution. Agrarian reform has likewise been acknowledged as compliant with the public use requirement for expro- sriation.” So have expropriation for slum clearance and urban development been considered for a public purpose oven if the developed area is later sold to private home- owners, commercial firms, entertainment and service companies and other private concerns:” along with ur- nan land reform and housing, or socialized housing pro- gram involving only a one-half hectare area;” and ao- & Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of ARTS Reform, 178 SCRA 349, Land Bank of the Philippines 6 ae Bail “Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 17 B40. Apr! 2a eR. No. IBT754, "8: and Land Bank of the Phili oe Heirs of Sal- eee wale Ege TTT “RA OU, LataCONSTITUTIONAL LAW 152 . iali i housing units are a; ed housing, whereby 0 © distr as to qualified beneficiaries on “much easier tent 7" Just Compensation dust compensation is described as a full and equivalent of the property taken from the private an by the expropriator. This ia intended to indemnig, e owner fally for the loss he has sustained as a resuly the expropriation. The measure of this compensati, not the taker's gain but the owner’s loss. The word “ye is used to intensify the meaning of the word “compenss tion,” to convey the idea that the equivalent to be r:. dered for the property taken shall be real, substan; full, ample.” “Indeed, the ‘just’ness of the compensa: can only be attained by using reliable and actual dan: bases in fixing the value of the condemned properiy.~ However, the compensation, to be just, must be tt not only to the owner but also to the expropriator. Par ment in excess of the full and fair equivalent of the l* sustained by the owner, being prejudicial to the pu" will not satisfy the requirement of just compensatio® . According to Knecht v. Court of Appeals,” the tet owner” as applied in eminent domain cases refers tt those whe have lawful interest in the properly condem ned, including a mortgagee, a lessee ant ventiee in possession under an executory contract:EMINENT DOMAIN 153 However, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. AMS Forming Corporation,” the Supreme Court rejected the respondent's claim for just compensation since it was spot. & landowner, but 8 mere lessee” of the expropriated agricultural land. Accordingly, the Court ruled that “iL had no right under the CARL to demand from LBP just compensation for its standing crops and improve- ments. As o lessee, the rights of AMS over its atanding erops and improvements on the leased property are de- fined, conferred, as well as limited by the provisions of the MOA it executed with TOTCO on 8 August 1991, in relation to those of the Civil Cade. That the leased land was placed under the CARP did not change the status of AMS as 4 lessee and gave it the right to more compen- sation upon the termination of the lease, as compared to the lessee of any other kind of property. [t was never the intention of the CARL to create a privileged class of lessees.” To aacertain just compensation, the court should determine first the actual or basic value of the property. Where the entire property is not expropriated, there should be added to the basic value the owner's conse- quential damages after deducting therefrom the conse- quential benefits arising From the expropriation. If the consequential benefits exceed the consequential dam- ages, these items should be disregarded altngether BS the basic value of the property should be paid in every cage.”- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW U4 ii ket value of the proper, . The basic oad upon by parties willing is th price th ae into a contract of sale.” Noi 4, Why cumpelled to entel ai Sn acquire a piece of propery, ten a buyer Oe ‘aed a seller in urgent nueg ogee aha ane veues to necept less, than what it is aay gvorth. The price agreed upon in these situations Wong not represent the market value of the property. cat me ext Just compensation “simply means the Proper, oe fair market value at the time of the filing of the oon ae plaint, or that sum of money which a person desires, ae but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing bu: ty ccmpellod to sell, would agree on as Price to be give, an received therefor.”" This market value is not bin. ite] to the aasessed value of the property or to ty schedule of market values determined by the provinal uf city appraisal committee. However, these values ma acrve as factors lo be considered in the judicial valu ao tion of the property.” While market value may be oned * the bases of determining just compensation, the sate cannot be arbitrarily arrived at without considering t# ie factors t be appreciated in arriving at the fair marke t value of the property, e.g., the cost of acquisition. ' current value of like properties, its size, shape, locatidt- as well au the tax declarations thereon.” the ping the factors to be considered in arriving 4 neq} atr tarket value of the property are the coat Misition, the current value of like propertie® at “City of Manila w fe TE aw &EMINewy Don, AN 165 time of ite taking,” its acty, the particular cage of land and the tax declarations | Consequential dama, caused on the residue of {h, 8] or potential uses, and in S. their sine 3 hereon. » Shape or location expropriator takes only pa the remainder with an od, id shape or are: be vi @ as to be virto- ally unusable, the owner can claim consequential dam- ages. On the other hand, if the remainder is as a result of the expropriation placed in a better location, such as fronting a street where it used to he an interior lot, the owner will enjoy consequential benefits which should be deducted from the consequential damages. Consequen- tial benefits, like consequential damages, must be direct and particular and not merely shared with the rest of the properties in the area, as where there is a general appreciation of land values because of the public use to which the condemned properties are devoted. In Republic of the Philippines v. Bank of the Phitip- pine Islands,” the Supreme Court clarified that no ac- tual taking of the building ig necessary ta grant conse- quential damages. Consequential damages are awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the remaining prop- erty of the owner suffers from an impairment or de- Crease in value.” Moreover, it nat be te are rm i i ments } tion for the crops and gee ag the former are part thy valuation of the raw |CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 7. Even if separately valued, a he landowner irrespective of he he said crops and installation, he DARAB is linsited only ‘The tribunal is not COncerney hip of the crops and j,, e latte! must be awar led #0 rt nature of awnership > ; Any valuation made by that —amere yaluation. is with the neture of the awne te provements. . In National Power Corporation v. Co, the Suprem, ce of transmission ling, Court declared that the presen! 0 would undoubtedly restrict the respondent’s use of his property and accordingly directed the petitioner to pay the full market value of said property. There were severa) decrees promulgated by Presi- dent Marcos providing that the just compensation for property under expropriation should be either the sworn valuation made by the owner or the official assessment thereof, whichever was lower. In National Housing Au- thority v. Reyes,” the Supreme Court applied this rule on the ground, according to Chief Justice Fernando, that its constitutionality should be presumed as it had not been challenged. In Export Processing Zone Authority €. eo eae, these decrees were invalidated and the ‘eyes Case was reversed, the Supreme Court hald- ing through Justice Gutierrez: aforected ie of ascertaining just compensation under tht TeES constitutes impermissible encroachment Tee ioeJubal prerogettves. It bendy . I : ’ mater which under the Conmtitu tia Court inutile in 9 determination, 418 Featrved to it fir final ‘Thus, although technically Would still have the par fi ET PEL: i cree siti tack ae the _erenerty, following 1 Spalicebler ae: value of the propery as decree MmMply eteteny the lower Seasor. ARO ntcemnnry oon A ¥ conarquence, j court to appoint cnmnnen | would be wnelows for the 9 tn Pxpepeintinn Brverindiny the evurt the ee taking. However, the steel applicauen of the de- cree during the Proceedings would be nothing ehort of a more formality or charade ag the con the veluation of the owner on: POL oxercige ite discretion Sr independence in determining what is just vr fair Eveq a grade school Pupil could substitute for the judge insofar as the detarmination ef constitutional juat compensation.” z x x x Tn the present petition, we are ence agnin confronted with the same question of whether the courts under P.D. 1594, which containg the same provisian on Just componsation as ita Predecessor decrees, stil! have the power add qultinrily to de- lermiime just compensation, independent of what ia stated by the decree and ta this effect. to Appoint commissioners for such Purpose, This tima, we anower in tha affirmative. 1t is violative of due process to deny the owner the oppor- tyauty to prove that the valuation in the tix documents is une fair ur wrong. And it is repulsive ta the basic concepts uf justice and farnras to allow the haphazard work ofa mina ed 7 » Court of 1d eee ee ign 49s SCRA 494 ancl Republis vw Con i‘ i}. 603, 616 ¢ 0). ¢ y At BC RAM : ah : bpeals, GR. Na. LAGaBT Pea TE Bink, ether Vata) Bade wl the Pile rey : eendirCONSTITUTIONAL LAW 166 : ding, a challenge anai ing notwithstan ‘ \ ie The salesgiehe of six percent mere nade by an erroneous its judgment in an eminent domain 9... lower court ected by the Supreme Court when i ceeding was Téj dent did not contest and ova, respon ; oF me c arn said judgment “in toto when the peti. The Court said that 4 i aled from the same. in keeping with the demands of due process, therefore, the Court deems it fit not to disturb the interest rate |si, percent] imposed by the courts below.” “Prompt payment of just compensation is not satis. fied by the mere deposit with any accessible bank of the provisional compensation determined by it or by the DAR, and its subsequent release to the landowner after compliance with the legal requirements set by RA 6657." On the other hand, it has been ruled that land- owners Would not be entitled to interest on the final compensation ifthe expropriator deposits the compensa- tion for their lands after their rejection of its initial valuation* The Supreme Court explained in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Chico” that “interest of 12% per annum delay in payment, whi ae ei tion on the part of the will, in effect, make the obliga “Land Bank of ¢ me | PAA, he Phitipnines r 55, June Br, anny eepines ¥ Heirsof Meus 8BEMEN] ENT DOMArN 167 On the other hand, interest jn the fo: a not be imposed where there is ction ae batt ment of just ae Interest on just compensa- tion is assessed only in case of delay ; thereof, a fact which must be Giletidtevmonda In City of Hoile v. Contreras-Besana," the Supreme Court held that a “government agency's prolonged occu- pation of private property without the benefit of expra- priation proceedings entitles the landowner to dam- ages.” The Court has explained that “these damages may be allowed when the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered same pecuniary loss but, from the nature of the case, definite proof of that pecuniary loss cannot be adduced.” In the aforecited case of Sy vy. Local Government of Quezon City,” the respondent started using the subject. property as a barangay day care and office as early as in 1986, but filed a complaint for eminent domain only ten years later. The Supreme Court heid that it is liable for damages. Notably, the tack of proper authorization, ie., resolutinn to effect expropriation, did not affect the character of the Cits"+ taking of the subject property in 1986 as the CA, in its January 20, 2012 Decision, suggests. Case law dictates that there i- “taking” when the ewner is actually deprived or diapoasessed uf his property; when there is a practical destruction ar a mate- rial impairment of the vaiue of hia property or when he is de- “CER No 18867, 12 Fehrnary 2010, APE SURATONSTIPC TEN AT 168 : Ff Ustienedpadity of ber Carty pprivee of the urtinny me A ptember AO, [M64 ey geet? 1 ONAWASA, TE Ne CR gtd Therstary, genet 184 ning staitioy the lack of ¢ Legnl cl gurhonzatien, the I the nee af taking” Hid not change In this gt Fo oa eed that the City epacted Ordinate Ny ye tater, dhe Ot i apal 12, 194 and Sled ite oxpropnanyy, ion i ee her 7. baa However, iW eves a avnplsint an > Me ey enced wit a“ ae a ar 1H86, Accordingly, fates cust run frog property pene proces! without an, fewer, Ph iF en. Tas areal et aly do CA: citing an bam the STIAA ease, raraiplary damages and attorney's foes shud by axanled the Inndewner if the gavernimeat takes Posseaaiog of the property for n azdlonged period of Lirae withant atuperty iMLaling expropriation proceedings. The MCAA ruling wag ap. hed in the morr eccent case of City af Hello 0. Judge Lalita Conners Bemna IR, No, 168067, February 12, 2010, 81 SCRA 459, 470471, citing MIAA v. Rodrigues, supra nate 23, mk 630-G321, wlwrein the Court adid: We stress, however. that the City of Hallo should be held dinbie for damages for tuking private respandent's prop. erty without payrient of just compensation, [n Manila International Airport Authority +. Rodriguez, the Court held that # government Agency's prolonged occupation of private oroperty without che bennfit of expropriatiun pro soediage undoubtedly entithed the landowner to damages Such pecuniary joss entitles hitn to adequate compenss- Hon in the Form of actual or compensatory damages. which in thie come should be the Jogal interest (6:1 on the value of the load at the Hime of taking, from ssid point up aaa payment hy the MIAA. This is based ‘og the princi: He ae et puns a3 a mater of aw and. follows fine aa of the iundowner to ba Placed in ag god inking aye? 2 Accomplish, as of the Unto af thr Fo MRK T more than Sub jet tot pj men 120) years, the MLA oerupie th? out the henatit of exproperation prereetEMINENT M1, mo 169 ings and without the MiAA uxorting efforts to ‘i ownership of the Lot and Hugotiating with any atthe won. ers of the property, To que mind. these nw wantan and drreapongible acts which should be suppressed and car- rected, Hence, the award of exemplary damages and at torneys fees is in order. x x x All told, the Court finds the grant of exem aniount of P200,000,06 a9 well as attorne: 1% of the tatal amount dua amply juatifi existing jurisprudence. plary damages in the y's fees equivalent ta ed, square as it is with In National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Sang- day,” the Supreme Court clarified that “the five-year prescriptive period provided under Section Si! of Repub- lic Act No. 6396 is applicable only to an action for dam- ages, and does not extend to an action to recover just compensation like this case. Consequently, NPC cannot thereby bar the right of the Heirs of Macabangkit to recover just compensation for their iand.” Neither laches nor prescription may bar a claim for Just compensation for property taken for public use. Taxes paid by him from the time of the taking until the transfer of title, during which he did not enjoy any beneficial use of the property, are reimbursable by the expropriator.” Title to the property shall not be trans- ferred until after actual payment of just compensation. In Republic v. Lim,” the decision in the expropria- tion Proceedings became final in the tate 1940s oe tee Owners remained unpaid for the property for more thanCONSTITUTIONAL LAW 170 60 years. The Supreme Court held through Justice ay. gelina Sandoval-Gutierrez: 2 ‘i revailing doctrine is thas y In ae nat entitle the private iat soe cer poruresion of the expropriated [nts. however, jeeases where the government failed to pay the compensating within five years fom the finality of the judgment in the ox. prupriation proceedings, the owner concerned shall. have the right to recover posscesion of their property. This is in connes. tion with the principle that “the government cannet koep the property and dishonor the judgment. To be suru, the Five-year perind Limitativa will encourage the government to pay just fompensation punctually. Thie is in keeping with justice and equity. After all, it is the duty of the government whenever it takes property from private persons agaunat their will, te facili- kate payment af jurt eampensution. In Comroltueda ©, Court of Appeois, we defined just compensation ax net valy che corceet determinntion of the amount to be paid to the property ower but ales the payment of the preperty within a reasonable time eee Prutipt payment, compensation cannot be considered Just. Ifa landowner agrees voluntarily to the taking of a praperty by the government for public use, he waives ue right to the institution of a formal expropriation Property. His failure to ques t fe i i q aoe Period the failure of the government to {epriation proceedings constitutes a waiver of his right to regai : remedy would be Eain possession of his property. Hit “il! not necessarily lead @landow per Wie leetEMINENT pg MAIN 171 to the landowner is the right of eo . the “owner of land, who standa ee “ Thus, and sees a public railryad , at ahjection, after the road is completed, or } i been made thereon upon the fai hot hie eettures have escence, reclaim the lang road company. Tn Such a case there can only remain to the owner a right of tompensation.™ As further ex- plained by the Court in Secretary of thy Departinent of Public Works and Highways y, Spouses Heraclee and Ramona Tecson™ — When a property ia taken by the government for public use, ju- Msprudence clearly provides for the romodiex available to 9 landowner, The owner may recover his property if its return is feasible or, if it is not, the Aggrieved owner may demand pay: ment of just compensation for the land taken. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra, at $32) For friluse of respondents 1a question the lack of expropriation proceedings fara long periad of time, they are deemed to have waived and are estopped Erom assailing the power of the government ta exproprinte or the Public use for whieh the power was exercised. What is left Ww Tespendents is the right of compensntion. (Eusedia v. Luis, su Pra, at 584; Forfom Development Corporution x. Philippine Na- tional Raiteuys, GR. No. 124795, December 10, 2008. STE SCRA 350, 366-367) The trial and appellate courts found that respondents are entitled to compensation. The only issue left for determination is the propriety of the amount awarded to respondents. ion i inv f the property a+ bewween dust compensation is “the fair value 0 pl ao ‘tine wha receives, and ane me dosires tosel 2 Thia rule holds ing by che gover 5s rt eof ul ig tineqren if it we the property owenet hu by, mention. aNepuetlre vr toner of Apeate. d printion sult an the action for contp pro, at S34! The ixque on this cose {Forti = Phit * tan {Forfornt © att eps Xe i Festa Peat ae No. 124798, Lacember i m ery Re a Aue peer Ft oy any Y9T0 tor public uae, that iF, ae cule tracks, Getic, and aypurtenanees [or wae af the Carmona anes Serine grithiut dutating exprepriation proceedings. (d.. nt 85 |p, 1950, Forfom filed a complanit for recovery of poaneanion of rey, property andor damages against PE, Tn Eusebio Lave GR No. 1sas74, tktober 13, 2008, 60g SCRA 5761. respondents pare] at bared ait takes 96 L280 by the City of Pasig and used, asa mutucpal cued maw Known 1s A. Sandoval Avenue in Pang City without the appropriate expraprintion proceedings In 1904, reapondeat demanded paydient af the value of the property, bur they could act agree on its voluntion prempting respondent tu file a gomplaint for reconvevance andor dam- ngee againer the city government and the mayor, In Munda In- lernonionad Aiquert Authoaty 2. Rodriguer (818 Phil, 759, 057 1200801, in the early 1970a, potilioner iinplomented expansinn programs for ils runway nocessitating the acquisition and oc: rupation of sone of the properties surrounding ity premises. As iv respondent's property, no exprapriation proceedings were initiated [n 1997, respondent demanded the payment of the value of the property, but the demand remained unhreled prompting hit to institute a ease for accion reivindicaton’ with dumages ngainet petitioner. In Republic r, Sarahia AR No. 157847, August 25. 2005, 468 SCRA 142), sametiae © 1906, the Air Transportation Oflee (ATOH took possession att en a ae of a tu situated in Aklon, ropgintercd in the ae seen eat, without initiating expropriation preeet ea aah nents wore erected therean ineheding r. the Knlibe crash fire raseiie atutiun, she Kalle Arport terminal and the bend 3 oa canis Gnoue: LE TSE ueced ee = Pn THRE, geveral stares and restaurants We¥ cone ructes! Brey apaciin Bled the reduviniag portion uf the bot. In 18et 4 Hed a complaint for pecayy AMUReS Again, the sture : doing that Ube ntesteaienes apt ave. a wll ry of pres ATO intereenerin oh (74 Tue Court in the jh Shove-rans) with common frei yal Siren Once cine. WHA voy tovk ennitel ane, Ue 7 mT rant aed wi POskesaion of the hare the Weceriownt na without initiating exprmgnnn payinent of juat tomnpenmntiy atone pried af ting to ‘auemin ste ae r instituted actions for Feouvery F powunmen nat Set ond Luter Court thus determined the Inadownery Hight we ue ne just compensation any, Ore ith partantl the gaymusn of campensation. The Gaur, ¥. the amount of jaa eae ae unile pensation is the value of the fortnly ruled that Juat enm: i Property at the Lime i ia controlling for PUrpowen yf compendation Tn fone Be payment of just compensatian ww, tasking in 1973; in Busetio, the Conn ed ee te = tian by determining the value of tho Property at the ‘ime of taking in 1980; in MUAA, the value of the Tot at the time of take ing in 1972 served ag bagie for the award of compensation ur the owner; and in Repudlie, the Court was canvineed thaz the tnking occurred in 1956 and was thus the basis in fixing just compensation. As in said Cases. just compensation dua respon. dents in this case should, thereforn, be Bxed ‘Abt as of the tine of payment dut ac the time of taking, that ia, in isa, The reasop: for the rule has been clesriy expiained in Re- public u. Lara, ef af, (96 Phil. 170 (1954), a2 repentedly held by the Court in recent casos, thus: x xx “The vaiue of the property should be fixed as of the dete when it was taken and nat the date of the filing of the proceedings.” For where property ie taken ahead of the filing of the condemnation proceedings, the value thereof may be enhanced by the public purpose for which it ia taken; the entry by the sn sean oe bree i its vaiue thereby; or, e mney Binie eon : tural ereune in the value of the property from the time it is taken to the ug men me i ons te te wee ovate pro, a as al intende ie coMIpEMsntion actually | it i i ded that hie compensa wally lasea; it ip nat J a : : injury. shall extend beyond hig aoe jainarty at the lime it ia is only the actual value o! Laken wx x,CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 174 fed thas the fair ma, z he CA recount Both the TG wn cone ety in 1940 wate Pe. 7Ofe i Hence, it aloe of thy SOU00 used in determining the a faa ae reg, should, therfore. alue which suis 00. Winky none ingtient 4s is abvioua andl MAY Appear jn, Faaarity in the above amour anrid be receiving Buch any fe ja.as they Waure CO i equa te ee very long period. it ie equally true tha; jn ii inst the eruel effects of be. they ton are rectiea fo on compensation does not ae Ee aes ry owner alone. Compensation must be fe ie property owners but. also to the pubtic vei ulumately jreara the vost of exprapristion. (Repubtic py, Court of Appeals, supra at 636) f, potiti had been occupying the subject property Sa ean My years without the ‘benefit of expropriation proceedings. In taking respondents’ property without the bene. Gt uf expropriation proceedings ond without payment of just compensntiivg, peliioners tlearly acted in utter disregard of teapomlente! proprictucy rights which cannot be countensnced by te Court, (Eusebia «Luis, supra at 587) For snid illegal taking, respondents aru entitled to adequate compensation in che for. of actual or compensatory damages which in this case should be the legal interest of six percent (6%! per annum on ue value of the lund at the time of taking in 1940 until full pagmant, Ue, at 87-088; Forfar Development Corporation 0. Pittippine Natonal Reitwoya, supra, at 373, Manile Iutertr siwual Auport Authority v. Rodriguez, supra al 7411 THis is oo “ the principle Lhal interest runs aa a matter of law and julian s froin the right of the landowner ty be placed! in as good felon Js sney can aeeamplish, as of the date of taking: 'Miuila Intemational Ai ity i nate 24, at TOLL mse tuetariny wariisrigpese In one cage, the Sy emnment to institute the eeedings alter it had two vivate Iota. The silence Preme Court ordered the gov a decades earlier taken over 1° of the landowners during thatEMINENT po; MAIN 175 long period was tonsidered by to the taking.” In Mactan Cebu International Air i Tudtud,"" the Court declared the ates sn to reconvey” property it had expropriated but never aad on condition that the landowners would return the just compensation they received, plus interest, the Court as their consent Insofar as expropriation for agrarian reform is con- cerned, it has been ruied that the agrarian reform proc- ess would be incomplete without payment of just com- pensation. In National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Sang- kay,” just compensation was determined on the basis of the value of the subject property upon the commence- ment by the owners of what the Court referred to as inverse condemnation proceedings, which was filed shortly after the owners discovered that the petitioner had, without their prior knowledge and consent, entered and built a tunnel through their property. The Court said — Woe rule that the reckoning value is the value at the time of the Gling of the comptaint x. Compensation that ee on the market value prevatling at the time either Ww ae er tered ur when it completed the tunnel, a8 Deimos already hot be just, for it would compound the Bros® ke = the intention caused ta the owners by NPC's entering withaw at 1990, 188 Aneida ve Tantuico, Jt. G.R. No SOLA7, 3 AuEYCUNSTITT i itheout thy rinterar tes and, reid oi i nest ofthe Heirs of Macabanglot. Np ey Taieneniary duc process af IW Bo thi aivtinry el th Tmnent commenced the inverne condy Aen a Court i@ mare concerned with ube ily prefiting fran ite det ra. Ano neusun prverndingn The event NPL front wnyus! ef denying die process of [nw tie the uwne ; ple juener and ordinary fairness to thei, therefore, 1 deat compenmitiva ot the value oe che time the ows ; Te sim, Tieneed theee inverse condemnation proceedings ia entivel, warranted Tt added — The action tn recover just compensation from the State or ity expruprinting agency differa dram the action for damages. 'The former, alee koawn as terse condemnation, hos the objective to recover the vilue of property token in fact by the gover moutal defendant, even though ng formu exercise of the power af eminent domain hus been ultempted by the taking gency. According to 254 CYS. Eminent Domain, $381: “Inverse con- demnation oo cause of action against a gavernmental defen: dant de recoter the value of property whieh hex been taken in Fact by the goreramentol defendant, even thaugh no formal ex ercise of the poner of eminent domain has beun uttempted by the taking dpency. While the typical taking accare when the xoverumest acta fe condemn property in the exorcise of its Pours of eminent dameln, the entire doctrine of inverse cake deninetion is predicated an the Proposition that @ taking may oeur uithout such format Broceedings. The phrose “inverse rundemantion,* as a common understanding of thet phrase would siggest, ateaply describes an action thal éx the “inver®” or Uniterae” of a condemantiog Proveeding,"} A similar ruling waa made in National Power Cor eatin, Court of Appoals,'™ whieh involved the simi- mo fuction ef an underground tunnel by the Na- ' Corporation without the prior consent and se of the owners. The Court held then as weilWi “that the basis in fixj Reames xing j ciation ef thi @ UH co: ; erty was the fines D Preceded theca Hien when the time of taking.” fee the filing of thee te he rap- when the entry by papieined thet mnleAM, not the 2B ¥ C was waa no takin made ‘wi u & expropriate or wax not made aa without intent 1 egal authority. ¥ warrant or calor of In National P, . De Capin,™ the melee v. Santa Laro Vda. action filed by the Petatdit fetter ordinary civil agreement, as well as for the cenaiers eh tHe bs of their of the lots taken, for its failure to comply w Soniee tion Lo pay just compensation for th Le al : Ba for ihe respandents' prop+ dead claiming, among others, that said suit constitutes reversed eminent domain.” The Court sustained the respondents. “Payment of just compensation or damages was an alternative remedy, akin to specific performance by the petitioner of its obligation under its agreement with respondents, which would prevent the rescission of the agreements altogether and the return of the posses- sion of the properties to respondents. xxx Having estab- shed that petitioner's acquisition of right-of-way case- ment aver the portions of respondents lots was defi- nitely a taking under the power of eminent domain. petitioner then is liable to pay reapondents just compen: sition and not merely an easement fee. When the Department af Agrarian Be ean ously caused the titling of the entire eee pwner, and not just te port a : ‘ 7 : ated priuted, the Supreme ene oe downet® precisely ights af rent ; entire Jnnd ta en wore tl the property 1BS >_> CONSTTPLTIONAL LAW 178 2 75.69143-hectare excluded Porting « ore ee el invasion of Proprictary Tish, which ig imputable to the Eee eee redret However, the form of that redress is imited an thiy 4 to damages arising from the erronguus tillicg yy he property. It cannot extend to the point where the Rows, lie would be compelled to acquire the #xeluded popjg beyond the coverage of the CARP, and pay jusi compen, sation for land ill-suited for agricultural purposes. s prayed for by respandents and ordered hy the chun below.” In Sas Rogie fealty and Development Corporation o. Republic of the Philippines ithraugh the Armed Fores of the Philippinesi,'’” the Supreme Court Opplied the operative fact doctrine in upholding the title af the pati. Hiener, which had purchased in good faith the subjec expropriated. property after it was shown that the or propriator had failed for 56 years to establish its pay. ment in full of the just corapensation therefor after and properly register the same, Finally, it should be Stressed that title ww the prop erty shall not be transferred unti] after actual payment of just compensation ia made to the owner.” damn Bank ap Veet