Lawyerly

GR No. 164195

2009-12-04

BERSAMIN, J.

When the state wields its power of eminent domain, there arises a correlative obligation on its part to pay the owner of the expropriated property just compensation. If it fails, there is a clear case of injustice that must be redressed.[32] Though it is the duty of the court to protect the weak and the underprivileged, this duty shall not be carried out as to deny justice to the landowner.[33]

GR No. 170540

2009-10-28

BALATICO v. RODRIGUEZ

PERALTA, J.

It bears to reiterate the undisputed fact, in the instant case, that Lim mortgaged the subject property to PNB prior to selling the same to petitioner's husband. Settled is the rule that a mortgage is an accessory contract intended to secure the performance of the principal obligation. One of its characteristics is that it is inseparable from the property. It adheres to the property regardless of who its owner may subsequently be.[30]

GR No. 174012

2008-11-14

MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. BENJAMIN TUDTUD

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The MCIAA disputed the applicability to the present case of the immediately-cited MCIAA ruling, the NAC having acquired Lot No. 988 not by a deed of sale but by virtue of a final judicial decree of expropriation which cannot be modified by parole evidence.[9]

GR No. 163130

2007-09-07

SAN ROQUE REALTY v. REPUBLIC

NACHURA, J.

At the outset, we note that issues of ownership and possession of several lots included in the 18 parcels of land covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate had been the subject of earlier controversies which we already had occasion to rule upon. Lot Nos. 932 and 939 were the subject of Valdehueza v. Republic[13] which is ubiquitously invoked by the Republic in this case. Republic v. Lim[14] dealt with the special circumstances surrounding the incomplete and ineffectual expropriation of Lot No. 932. On the other hand, Federated Realty Corporation v. Court of Appeals[15] preliminarily determined the state of ownership and possession of a portion of Lot No. 933, particularly Lot 3, covered by TCT No. 119929.

GR NO. 158609

2007-07-27

SPS. MARIAN B. LINTAG AND ANGELO T. ARRASTIA v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION

NACHURA, J.

The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by the court of "the just compensation for the property sought to be taken." This is done by the court with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners x x x.[27] It is only upon the completion of these two stages that expropriation is said to have been completed. The process is not complete until payment of just compensation.[28] Accordingly, the issuance of the writ of possession in this case does not write finis to the expropriation proceedings. To effectuate the transfer of ownership, it is necessary for the NPC to pay the property owners the final just compensation.[29]

GR NO. 160656

2007-06-15

REPUBLIC v. ISMAEL ANDAYA

QUISUMBING, J.

For this reason, in our view, Andaya is entitled to payment of just compensation, which must be neither more nor less than the monetary equivalent of the land.[13] One of the basic principles enshrined in our Constitution is that no person shall be deprived of his private property without due process of law; and in expropriation cases, an essential element of due process is that there must be just compensation whenever private property is taken for public use. Noteworthy, Section 9, Article III of our Constitution mandates that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.[14]

GR NO. 150640

2007-03-22

BARANGAY SINDALAN v. CA

Another vital requisite for a valid condemnation is the payment of just compensation to the property owner. In the recent case of APO Fruits Corporation v. The Honorable Court of Appeals,[18] just compensation has been defined as "the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator," and that the gauge for computation is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. In order for the payment to be "just," it must be real, substantial, full, and ample. Not only must the payment be fair and correctly determined, but also, the Court in Estate of Salud Jimenez v. Philippine Export Processing Zone stressed that the payment should be made within a "reasonable time" from the taking of the property.[19] It succinctly explained that without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" inasmuch as the property owner is being made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of the land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with the loss. Thus, once just compensation is finally determined, the expropriator must immediately pay the amount to the lot owner. In Reyes v. National Housing Authority, it was ruled that 12% interest per annum shall be imposed on the final compensation until paid.[20] Thus, any further delay in the payment will result in the imposition of 12% interest per annum. However, in the recent case of Republic v. Lim, the Court enunciated the rule that "where the government failed to pay just compensation within five (5) years from the finality of the judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their property."[21]

GR NO. 157753

2007-02-12

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JUAN H. IMPERIAL

QUISUMBING, J.

Such being the case, it is inequitable to determine the just compensation based solely on the formula provided by DAR A.O. No. 13, as amended. Thus, we return to the guidelines provided under P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 since the same remained operative despite the passage of Republic Act No. 6657.[19] On this score, E.O. No. 229,[20] which provides for the mechanism of Rep. Act No. 6657, specifically states: "(P)residential Decree No. 27, as amended, shall continue to operate with respect to rice and corn lands, covered thereunder. ...."[21] However, since just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also its payment within a reasonable time from the taking of the land,[22] we think that the appellate court correctly imposed an interest in the nature of damages for the delay. In line with current jurisprudence,[23] we set the legal interest at 12% per annum. To this extent, we agree that we should modify the appellate court's ruling.

GR NO. 166429

2005-12-19

REPUBLIC v. HENRICK F. GINGOYON

TINGA, J.

Indeed, this Court has been vigilant in defense of the rights of the property owner who has been validly deprived of possession, yet retains legal title over the expropriated property pending payment of just compensation. We reiterated the various doctrines of such import in our recent holding in Republic v. Lim:[60]

GR NO. 127967

2005-12-14

FEDERATED REALTY CORPORATION v. CA

TINGA, J.

The Decision in the Commonwealth case notwithstanding, the legal ownership of the expropriated lands was mired in controversy. This Court has had two occasions to rule on the question of ownership involving two of the lots. Valdehueza v. Republic,[6] decided in 1966, concerned Lot Nos. 932 and 939 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate, while Lot No. 932 was likewise the subject of Republic v. Lim,[7] decided earlier this year. In both cases, the Court found that by the very admission of the government, there was no record of payment of compensation by the government to the landowners. Thus, the Court ruled in both cases that there was no transfer of the lots involved in favor of the government. The decisions, however, did not touch on the state of ownership of Lot No. 933 which was not involved in the cases.

GR NO. 164282

2005-10-12

TERESITA M. YUJUICO v. JOSE L. ATIENZA

TINGA, J.

The decision rendering just compensation in petitioner's favor was promulgated way back in the year 2000.[87] Five years have passed, yet the award still has not been fully satisfied. Recently, in Republic v. Lim,[88] this Court made the following pronouncement:. . . while the prevailing doctrine is that the non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the private landowner to recover possession of the expropriated lots, however, in cases where the government failed to pay just compensation within five (5) years from the finality of judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their property. This is in consonance with the principle that "the government cannot keep the property and dishonor the judgment." To be sure, the five-year period limitation will encourage the government to pay just compensation punctually. This is in keeping with justice and equity. After all, it is the duty of the government, whenever it takes property from private persons against their will, to facilitate the payment of just compensation.[89] (Citations omitted)

	GR No. 164195 2009-12-04	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
When the state wields its power of eminent domain, there arises a correlative obligation on its part to pay the owner of the expropriated property just compensation. If it fails, there is a clear case of injustice that must be redressed.[32] Though it is the duty of the court to protect the weak and the underprivileged, this duty shall not be carried out as to deny justice to the landowner.[33]
	GR No. 170540 2009-10-28	BALATICO v. RODRIGUEZ PERALTA, J.
It bears to reiterate the undisputed fact, in the instant case, that Lim mortgaged the subject property to PNB prior to selling the same to petitioner's husband. Settled is the rule that a mortgage is an accessory contract intended to secure the performance of the principal obligation. One of its characteristics is that it is inseparable from the property. It adheres to the property regardless of who its owner may subsequently be.[30]
	GR No. 174012 2008-11-14	MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. BENJAMIN TUDTUD CARPIO MORALES, J.
The MCIAA disputed the applicability to the present case of the immediately-cited MCIAA ruling, the NAC having acquired Lot No. 988 not by a deed of sale but by virtue of a final judicial decree of expropriation which cannot be modified by parole evidence.[9]
	GR No. 163130 2007-09-07	SAN ROQUE REALTY v. REPUBLIC NACHURA, J.
At the outset, we note that issues of ownership and possession of several lots included in the 18 parcels of land covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate had been the subject of earlier controversies which we already had occasion to rule upon. Lot Nos. 932 and 939 were the subject of Valdehueza v. Republic[13] which is ubiquitously invoked by the Republic in this case. Republic v. Lim[14] dealt with the special circumstances surrounding the incomplete and ineffectual expropriation of Lot No. 932. On the other hand, Federated Realty Corporation v. Court of Appeals[15] preliminarily determined the state of ownership and possession of a portion of Lot No. 933, particularly Lot 3, covered by TCT No. 119929.
	GR NO. 158609 2007-07-27	SPS. MARIAN B. LINTAG AND ANGELO T. ARRASTIA v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by the court of "the just compensation for the property sought to be taken." This is done by the court with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners x x x.[27] It is only upon the completion of these two stages that expropriation is said to have been completed. The process is not complete until payment of just compensation.[28] Accordingly, the issuance of the writ of possession in this case does not write finis to the expropriation proceedings. To effectuate the transfer of ownership, it is necessary for the NPC to pay the property owners the final just compensation.[29]
	GR NO. 160656 2007-06-15	REPUBLIC v. ISMAEL ANDAYA QUISUMBING, J.
For this reason, in our view, Andaya is entitled to payment of just compensation, which must be neither more nor less than the monetary equivalent of the land.[13] One of the basic principles enshrined in our Constitution is that no person shall be deprived of his private property without due process of law; and in expropriation cases, an essential element of due process is that there must be just compensation whenever private property is taken for public use. Noteworthy, Section 9, Article III of our Constitution mandates that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.[14]
	GR NO. 150640 2007-03-22	BARANGAY SINDALAN v. CA
Another vital requisite for a valid condemnation is the payment of just compensation to the property owner. In the recent case of APO Fruits Corporation v. The Honorable Court of Appeals,[18] just compensation has been defined as "the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator," and that the gauge for computation is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. In order for the payment to be "just," it must be real, substantial, full, and ample. Not only must the payment be fair and correctly determined, but also, the Court in Estate of Salud Jimenez v. Philippine Export Processing Zone stressed that the payment should be made within a "reasonable time" from the taking of the property.[19] It succinctly explained that without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" inasmuch as the property owner is being made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of the land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with the loss. Thus, once just compensation is finally determined, the expropriator must immediately pay the amount to the lot owner. In Reyes v. National Housing Authority, it was ruled that 12% interest per annum shall be imposed on the final compensation until paid.[20] Thus, any further delay in the payment will result in the imposition of 12% interest per annum. However, in the recent case of Republic v. Lim, the Court enunciated the rule that "where the government failed to pay just compensation within five (5) years from the finality of the judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their property."[21]
	GR NO. 157753 2007-02-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JUAN H. IMPERIAL QUISUMBING, J.
Such being the case, it is inequitable to determine the just compensation based solely on the formula provided by DAR A.O. No. 13, as amended. Thus, we return to the guidelines provided under P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 since the same remained operative despite the passage of Republic Act No. 6657.[19] On this score, E.O. No. 229,[20] which provides for the mechanism of Rep. Act No. 6657, specifically states: "(P)residential Decree No. 27, as amended, shall continue to operate with respect to rice and corn lands, covered thereunder. ...."[21] However, since just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also its payment within a reasonable time from the taking of the land,[22] we think that the appellate court correctly imposed an interest in the nature of damages for the delay. In line with current jurisprudence,[23] we set the legal interest at 12% per annum. To this extent, we agree that we should modify the appellate court's ruling.
	GR NO. 166429 2005-12-19	REPUBLIC v. HENRICK F. GINGOYON TINGA, J.
Indeed, this Court has been vigilant in defense of the rights of the property owner who has been validly deprived of possession, yet retains legal title over the expropriated property pending payment of just compensation. We reiterated the various doctrines of such import in our recent holding in Republic v. Lim:[60]
	GR NO. 127967 2005-12-14	FEDERATED REALTY CORPORATION v. CA TINGA, J.
The Decision in the Commonwealth case notwithstanding, the legal ownership of the expropriated lands was mired in controversy. This Court has had two occasions to rule on the question of ownership involving two of the lots. Valdehueza v. Republic,[6] decided in 1966, concerned Lot Nos. 932 and 939 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate, while Lot No. 932 was likewise the subject of Republic v. Lim,[7] decided earlier this year. In both cases, the Court found that by the very admission of the government, there was no record of payment of compensation by the government to the landowners. Thus, the Court ruled in both cases that there was no transfer of the lots involved in favor of the government. The decisions, however, did not touch on the state of ownership of Lot No. 933 which was not involved in the cases.
	GR NO. 164282 2005-10-12	TERESITA M. YUJUICO v. JOSE L. ATIENZA TINGA, J.
The decision rendering just compensation in petitioner's favor was promulgated way back in the year 2000.[87] Five years have passed, yet the award still has not been fully satisfied. Recently, in Republic v. Lim,[88] this Court made the following pronouncement:. . . while the prevailing doctrine is that the non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the private landowner to recover possession of the expropriated lots, however, in cases where the government failed to pay just compensation within five (5) years from the finality of judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their property. This is in consonance with the principle that "the government cannot keep the property and dishonor the judgment." To be sure, the five-year period limitation will encourage the government to pay just compensation punctually. This is in keeping with justice and equity. After all, it is the duty of the government, whenever it takes property from private persons against their will, to facilitate the payment of just compensation.[89] (Citations omitted)

REPUBLIC v. VICENTE G. LIM