Republic v CA & HEIRS OF LUIS SANTOS
G.R. No. 146587
July 2, 2002
J. Vitug
FACTS
Sep. 19, 1969: PH Information Agency instituted (3) expropriation proceedings
before the RTC of Bulacan, covering a 544,980 sqm of contiguous land situated
along MacArthur Highway, Malolos, Bulacan, to be utilized for the continued
broadcast operation and use of radio transmitter facilities for the "Voice of the
Philippines" project.
PIA, took over the premises after the previous lessee, the "Voice of America,"
had ceased its operations thereat. PIA deposited P517,558.80, the sum
provisionally fixed as being the reasonable value of the property.
Feb. 26 1979, RTC rendered a decision ordering PIA to:
> pay the defendants the just compensation for said property at the rate of P6
per sqm, with legal rate of interest from Sept. 19, 1969, until fully paid.
16 1999 when PIA filed its manifestation and motion to permit the deposit in
court of the amount of P4,664,000 by way of just compensation for the
expropriated property of the late Luis Santos subject to such final computation
as might be approved by the court.
Santos heirs, opposing the manifestation and motion, submitted a countermotion to adjust the compensation from P6 per sqm to its current zonal
valuation pegged at P5k per sqm or, in the alternative, to cause the return to
them of the expropriated property.
Mar.1 2000,: RTC Bulacan ruled in favor of Rs, vacating its decision of Feb. 26
1979 and declaring it to be unenforceable on the ground of prescription.
CA outrightly denied PIA's petition for certiorari.
> based on S4, Rule 65, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Hence this petition by PIA.
76,589-square meter property owned by Luis Santos, predecessor-in-interest of > the motion which Rs had filed on Feb. 17 1984, followed up by other motions
Rs, forms part of the expropriated area.
subsequent thereto, was made within the reglementary period that thereby
interrupted the 5-yr prescriptive period within which to enforce the 1979
PIA failed to pay to Rs 5 years later, or on May 9 1984, Rs filed a manifestation judgment.
with a motion seeking payment for the expropriated property.
> the receipt by Rs of partial compensation in the sum of P72,683.55 on July 23
1984 constituted partial compliance on the part of Ps and effectively estopped Rs
RTC Bulacan, after ascertaining that the heirs remained unpaid in the sum of
from invoking prescription expressed in Section 6, Rule 39, of the RoC.
P1,058,655.05, issued a writ of execution served on PIA, through the OSG.
Rs' Answers:
Order was not complied with -> Rs filed a motion urging the RTC to direct the
> pursuant to S6, Rule 39, of the RoC, the failure of PIA to execute the Feb
provincial treasurer of Bulacan to release to them the amount of P72,683.55, a judgment, within 5 years after it had become final and executory, rendered it
portion of the sum deposited by PIA at the inception of the expropriation.
unenforceable by mere motion.
RTC granted the motion.
> The motion for payment, dated May 9 1984, as well as the subsequent
disbursement to them of the sum of P72,683.55, could not be considered as
In the meantime, Pres. Estrada issued Proclamation No. 22, transferring 20 hec. having interrupted the 5-year period, since a motion, to be considered
of the expropriated property to the Bulacan State University for the expansion otherwise, should instead be made by the prevailing party, in this case by PIA.
of its facilities and another 5 hectares to be used exclusively for the propagation > the P72,683.55 paid to them was part of the initial deposit made by petitioner
of the Philippine carabao. The remaining portion was retained by the PIA.
when it first entered possession of the property in 1969 and should not be so
regarded as a partial payment.
Santos heirs remained unpaid, and no action was taken on their case until Sept. > PIA has no right to transfer ownership of a portion of the property to the
Bulacan State University even while the just compensation due the heirs had yet rights, upon the other hand, by effectively restraining the former and affording
to be finally settled.
protection to the latter.
Note: The petition being imbued with public interest, SC resolved to give it due In determining "public use," two approaches are utilized:
course and to decide the case on its merits.
> the first is public employment or the actual use by the public, and
> the second is public advantage or benefit.
WON there was GAD on the part of the RTC.
Held: Yes
(3) The expropriated property has been shown to be for the continued
(1) Eminent domain defined
utilization by the PIA, a significant portion thereof being ceded for the
The right of eminent domain is usually understood to be an ultimate right of the expansion of the facilities of the Bulacan State University and for the
sovereign power to appropriate any property within its territorial sovereignty propagation of the Philippine carabao, themselves in line with the requirements
for a public purpose. Fundamental to the independent existence of a State, it
of public purpose.
requires no recognition by the Constitution, whose provisions are taken as being Rs question the public nature of the utilization by PIA of the condemned
merely confirmatory of its presence and as being regulatory, at most, in the due property (present use differs from the purpose originally contemplated). The
exercise of the power.
argument is of no moment. The property has assumed a public character upon
its expropriation. PIA, as the condemnor and as the owner of the property, is
In the hands of the legislature, the power is inherent, its scope matching that of well within its rights to alter and decide the use of that property, the only
taxation, even that of police power itself, in many respects. It reaches to every limitation being that it be for public use, which, decidedly, it is.
form of property the State needs for public use and, as an old case so puts it, all
separate interests of individuals in property are held under a tacit agreement or Rs' reliance on the pronouncement in Provincial Government of Sorsogon vs.
implied reservation vesting upon the sovereign the right to resume the
Vda. de Villaroya is misplaced, The grant of the power of eminent domain to
possession of the property whenever the public interest so requires it.
local governments under RA 7160 cannot be understood as being the pervasive
and all-encompassing power vested in the legislative branch of government. For
The ubiquitous character of eminent domain is manifest in the nature of the
local governments to be able to wield the power, it must, by enabling law, be
expropriation proceedings. Expropriation proceedings are not adversarial in the delegated to it by the national legislature, but even then, this delegated power of
conventional sense, for the condemning authority is not required to assert any eminent domain is not, strictly speaking, a power of eminent, but only of
conflicting interest in the property. Thus, by filing the action, the condemnor in inferior, domain or only as broad or confined as the real authority would want it
effect merely serves notice that it is taking title and possession of the property, to be.
and the defendant asserts title or interest in the property, not to prove a right to
possession, but to prove a right to compensation for the taking.
(4) Precedent Cases: In Valdehueza vs. Republic where the private landowners
had remained unpaid ten years after the termination of the expropriation
(2) The power is not without its limits:
proceedings, SC ruled:
> first, the taking must be for public use, and
> second, that just compensation must be given to the private owner of the
xxx plaintiffs are not entitled to recover possession of their expropriated lots - which are
property.
still devoted to the public use for which they were expropriated - but only to demand the
These twin proscriptions have their origin in the recognition of the necessity for fair market value of the same.
achieving balance between the State interests, on the one hand, and private
The Court reiterated this pronouncement in Alfonso vs. Pasay City.
The judgment rendered by the RTC in 1979 on the expropriation proceedings
or deflation, the value of the currency at the time of the establishment of the
provides not only for the payment of just compensation to Rs but likewise
obligation shall be the basis for the payment when no agreement to the contrary
adjudges the property condemned in favor of PIA over which parties, as well as is stipulated, has strict application only to contractual obligations. In other
their privies, are bound. Petitioner has occupied, utilized and, for all intents and words, a contractual agreement is needed for the effects of extraordinary
purposes, exercised dominion over the property. The exercise of such rights has inflation to be taken into account to alter the value of the currency.
amounted to at least a partial compliance or satisfaction of the 1979 judgment,
thereby preempting any claim of bar by prescription on grounds of nonCONLUCSION: RTC Bulacan in issuing its order, dated 01 March 2000, has acted
execution.
beyond its lawful cognizance, the only authority left to it being to order its
execution.
The right of the expropriatory authority is far from that of an unpaid seller in
ordinary sales, to which the remedy of rescission might perhaps apply. An in
DISPOSITIVE: Petition is GRANTED. CA & RTC decisiond are SET ASIDE. Case
rem proceeding, condemnation acts upon the property. After condemnation, the remanded to the RTC for the proper execution of its decision promulgated on 26
paramount title is in the public under a new and independent title; thus, by
February 1979 which is hereby REINSTATED.
giving notice to all claimants to a disputed title, condemnation proceedings
> just compensation: P6 per sqm, with legal interest thereon at 12% per annum
provide a judicial process for securing better title against all the world than may computed from the date of "taking" of the property, i.e., 19 September 1969,
be obtained by voluntary conveyance.
until the due amount shall have been fully paid.
Rs, in arguing laches against PIA did not take into account that the same
argument could likewise apply against them. Rs first instituted proceedings for
payment against petitioner on May 9 1984, or five years after the 1979 judgment
had become final.
(5) 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. Thus, if property is taken for public use before compensation
is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case, the final
compensation must include interests on its just value to be computed from the
time the property is taken to the time when compensation is actually paid or
deposited with the court. In fine, between the taking of the property and the
actual payment, legal interests accrue in order to place the owner in a position
as good as (but not better than) the position he was in before the taking
occurred.
Note: A1250 of the Civil Code, providing that, in case of extraordinary inflation
