Republic of the Philippines, represented by Air Transportation Office, versus

Sarabia

Facts:

 In 1956, ATO justly expropriated a portion of the property of Sarabia

 ATO took possession and control of the portion of respondents’ property
 ATO utilized the property for parking area, control tower, airport fire rescue
station, terminal, and HQ of PNP aviation security
 ATO assured respondents payment. However, the parties did not agree on the amount
for just compensation.
 In 1998, Republic filed with RTC an action for the expropriation of the whole
property
 In 1999, RTC appointed commissioners to ascertain just compensation
 Commissioners submitted report
 On hearing, the court required ATO to prove that portions not occupied by the
government is still needed for public purpose. ATO did not present evidence as
they countered there was no need to do so, being that almost 1/2 of the entire
property has already been devoted to public purpose
 RTC held against ATO, ruling that the additional area submitted for expropriation is
not needed by ATO for public purpose
 RTC adopted commissioner’s report which fixed the just compensation using the
current market value of the lot in 1999 (at the time of the issuance of the writ of
possession - because this is the time of legal acquisition of property).
 ATO filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal, the entire records were then
transmitted to the CA. CA affirmed RTC decision. MR was denied. PR under Rule
45 was filed.
 ATO contends that the just compensation fixed by the trial court based on the
market value of the property after the commencement of the expropriation
proceedings contradicts established jurisprudence
 ATO also contends that the just compensation for the entire lot should be fixed in
the amount based on its assessed value in 1956

Issue:
WON just compensation should be reckoned from the time of actual taking or at the
issuance of the writ of possession
WON just compensation for the entire property should be fixed in the amount based on
its assessed value in 1956

Held:
1. SC agrees with ATO. It said that the value of the property as it was when the
government took possession of the land represents its true value for just compensation,
not as of the time of the institution of the expropriation proceeding.
2. SC disagreed with ATO. It ruled that there is nothing on record that ATO occupied the
remaining portion of the property (back in 1956, only a portion of the lot was occupied).
To add to that, neither did it ever present proof that said unoccupied portion is necessary
for public use.

Therefore, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED - CA decision is modified in the sense

that it was wrong in computing just compensation based on the market value at the time
of the issuance of the writ of possession.