Republic of the Philippines

Province of Sarangani
PROVINCIAL LEGAL OFFICE
Ground Floor, JLC Building, Capitol Complex, Alabel,
Sarangani Province

E-mail: Sarangani.legaloffice@gmail.com

6 October 2020 Legal Opinion No. 2020-0096

To : ANARSELY D. CAGAS, REA

OIC Provincial Assessor
Province of Sarangani

FROM : ATTY. EDWIN E. TORRES

Provincial Legal Officer
Province of Sarangani

Subject : WHETHER IT IS PROPER FOR THE PROVINCIAL APPRAISAL COMMITTEE

TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATION REQUESTED BY THE PROVINCIAL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
____________________________________________________________________________

Barangay

1.

Ma’am:

According to the Manual on Real Property Appraisal and Assessment Operations, the
Provincial Appraisal Committee is the committee tasked to determine the market value
of a private property which is subject to acquisition by the government for public use.
The committee is headed by the Provincial Assessor as its chairperson. Furthermore,
an “assessor,” according to Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 9646 (“Real Estate
Service Act of the Philippines”) Real Estate Service in the Philippines, Creating for the
Purpose a Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service, Appropriating Funds
Therefor and for Other Purposes,” (b) x x x refers to an official in the local government
unit, who performs appraisal and assessment of real properties, including plants,
equipment, and machineries, essentially for taxation purposes. This definition also
includes assistant assessors.”

Meanwhile, according to Section 3 of the same law, an “appraiser” “(a) x x x also known
as valuer, refers to a person who conducts valuation/appraisal; specifically, one who
possesses the necessary qualifications, license, ability and experience to execute or
direct the valuation/appraisal of real property.” It can be gleaned from the foregoing that
both an appraiser and assessor are licensed and authorized to appraise and assess the
value of lands. Thus, the results of their appraisal and assessment, whatever it may be,
are deemed valid.

Now, in this particular subject matter, the Provincial Planning and Development
Coordinator refused to sign the project design of the barangay site of Barangay Datal

1
Bila because the Provincial Appraisal Committee did not issue a certification stating that
the purchase of land “is most advantageous to the government considering the
reasonableness of the price, completeness of documents, location, feasibility and other
considerations.” However, the Provincial Appraisal Committee maintains that it cannot
issue such certification because it did not conduct the appraisal. It was Mr. Arturo M.
Lawa, a private licensed appraiser, who conducted the appraisal of the land. We are of
the opinion that the Provincial Appraisal Committee need not issue said certification
because the appraisal was not conducted by it in the first place. It cannot certify
something over which it did not have full knowledge. Mr. Lawa is a duly-licensed private
appraiser, so it follows that his appraisal and assessment of the land is valid and can be
relied upon by anyone.

Hence, considering the urgency of the approval of the barangay site of Barangay Datal
Bila, we recommend that the Provincial Planning and Development Coordinator sign the
project design of the abovementioned project to expedite its implementation.

Thank you and Sulong Sarangani!

Very truly yours,

ATTY. EDWIN E. TORRES

Provincial Legal Officer

We agree with the trial court that it was not bound by the assessment report of the commissioners
and that it had the discretion to reject the same and substitute its own judgment on its value as
gathered from the record, or it may accept the report/recommendation of the commissioners in toto
and base its judgment thereon. However, the decision of the court must be based on all established
rules, upon correct legal principles and competent evidence.  The court is proscribed from basing its
26

judgment on speculations and surmises.

Nonetheless, we cannot subscribe to petitioner’s argument that just compensation for the subject
property should not exceed the zonal valuation (₱300.00 per square meter).

In Republic v. Court of Appeals,  we held that --

27

The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be the sum equivalent to the
market value of the property, broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in
the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition or the fair value of the property as
between one who receives, and one who desires to sell, it fixed at the time of the actual taking by
the government. x x x

Zonal valuation is just one of the indices of the fair market value of real estate. By itself, this index
cannot be the sole basis of "just compensation" in expropriation cases.  As this Court ruled in Leca
28

Realty Corporation v. Rep. of the Phils. :

29

The Republic is incorrect, however, in alleging that the values were exorbitant, merely because they
exceeded the maximum zonal value of real properties in the same location where the subject
properties were located. The zonal value may be one, but not necessarily the sole, index of the
value of a realty. National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial held thus:

"Kilos Abante, Rehiyon Dose.”

2
"x x x [Market value] is not limited to the assessed value of the property or to the schedule of market
values determined by the provincial or city appraisal committee. However, these values may serve
as factors to be considered in the judicial valuation of the property."

The above ruling finds support in EPZA v. Dulay in this wise:

"Various factors can come into play in the valuation of specific properties singled out for
expropriation.  The values given by provincial assessors are usually uniform for very wide areas
1âwphi1

covering several barrios or even an entire town with the exception of the poblacion. Individual
differences are never taken into account. The value of land is based on such generalities as its
possible cultivation for rice, com, coconuts or other crops. Very often land described as 'cogonal' has
been cultivated for generations. Buildings are described in terms of only two or three classes of
building materials and estimates of areas are more often inaccurate than correct. Tax values can
serve as guides but cannot be absolute substitutes for just compensation." (Emphasis supplied.)

Among the factors to be considered in arriving at the fair market value of the property are the cost of
acquisition, the current value of like properties, its actual or potential uses, and in the particular case
of lands, their size, shape, location, and the tax declarations thereon. The measure is not the taker's
gain but the owner's loss.  To be just, the compensation must be fair not only to the owner but also
30

to the taker.
31

It is settled that the final conclusions on the proper amount of just compensation can only be made
after due ascertainment of the requirements set forth under R.A. 8974 and not merely based on the
declarations of the parties.  Since these requirements were not satisfactorily complied with, and in
32

the absence of reliable and actual data as bases in fixing the value of the condemned property,
remand of this case to the trial court is in order.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 21, 2009
and Resolution dated April 28, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 90539 are hereby
SET ASIDE.

G.R. No. 192100               March 12, 2014

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND

HIGHWAYS (DPWH) , Petitioner,
1

vs.
ASIA PACIFIC INTEGRATED STEEL CORPORATION, Respondent.

DECISION

"Kilos Abante, Rehiyon Dose.”

3