Lawyerly

GR No. 181892

2015-09-08

BRION, J.

If we adopt the new replacement cost method, PIATCO would be compensated for more than what it had actually lost. We must remember that the concept of just compensation does not imply fairness to the property owner alone. In an eminent domain situation, compensation must likewise be just to the public which ultimately bears the cost of expropriation. The property owner is entitled to compensation only for what he actually loses; what he loses is only the actual value of the property at the time of the taking.[231]

GR No. 179334

2013-07-01

SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. SPS. HERACLEO AND RAMONA TECSON

PERALTA, J.

Even if we squarely deal with the issues of laches and prescription, the same must still fail. Laches is principally a doctrine of equity which is applied to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation or in an injustice.[27] This doctrine finds no application in this case, since there is nothing inequitable in giving due course to respondents' claim. Both equity and the law direct that a property owner should be compensated if his property is taken for public use.[28] Neither shall prescription bar respondents' claim following the long-standing rule "that where private property is taken by the Government for public use without first acquiring title thereto either through expropriation or negotiated sale, the owner's action to recover the land or the value thereof does not prescribe."[29]

GR No. 185124

2012-01-25

REPUBLIC v. RURAL BANK OF KABACAN

SERENO, J.

Moreover, factual findings of the CA are generally binding on this Court. The rule admits of exceptions, though, such as when the factual findings of the appellate court and the trial court are contradictory, or when the findings are not supported by the evidence on record.[42] These exceptions, however, are not present in the instant case.

GR No. 164195

2010-10-12

APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES

BRION, J.

We subsequently upheld Republic's 12% per annum interest rate on the unpaid expropriation compensation in the following cases: Reyes v. National Housing Authority,[19] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,[20] Republic v. Court of Appeals,[21] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial,[22] Philippine Ports Authority v. Rosales-Bondoc,[23] and Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority.[24]

GR No. 162474

2009-10-13

VICENTE P. EUSEBIO v. JOVITO M. LUIS

PERALTA, J.

At the outset, petitioners must be disabused of their belief that respondents' action for recovery of their property, which had been taken for public use, or to claim just compensation therefor is already barred by prescription. In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[5] the Court emphasized "that where private property is taken by the Government for public use without first acquiring title thereto either through expropriation or negotiated sale, the owner's action to recover the land or the value thereof does not prescribe." The Court went on to remind government agencies not to exercise the power of eminent domain with wanton disregard for property rights as Section 9, Article III of the Constitution provides that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." [6]

GR NO. 160379

2009-08-14

REPUBLIC THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. CA

CARPIO, J.

The procedure for determining just compensation is set forth in Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 5 of Rule 67 partly states that "[u]pon the rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more than three (3) competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just compensation for the property sought to be taken." However, we held in Republic v. Court of Appeals[28] that Rule 67 presupposes a prior filing of complaint for eminent domain with the appropriate court by the expropriator. If no such complaint is filed, the expropriator is considered to have violated procedural requirements, and hence, waived the usual procedure prescribed in Rule 67, including the appointment of commissioners to ascertain just compensation.[29] In National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[30] we clarified that when there is no action for expropriation and the case involves only a complaint for damages or just compensation, the provisions of the Rules of Court on ascertainment of just compensation (i.e., provisions of Rule 67) are no longer applicable, and a trial before commissioners is dispensable, thus: In this case, NPC appropriated Pobre's Property without resort to expropriation proceedings. NPC dismissed its own complaint for the second expropriation. At no point did NPC institute expropriation proceedings for the lots outside the 5,554 square-meter portion subject of the second expropriation. The only issues that the trial court had to settle were the amount of just compensation and damages that NPC had to pay Pobre.

GR No. 166973

2009-02-10

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN ONG CO

TINGA, J.

Eminent domain "is the inherent power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property to particular use to promote public welfare."[14] In the exercise of its power of eminent domain, just compensation must be given to the property owner to satisfy the requirements of Sec. 9, Art. III[15] of the Constitution. Just compensation is the fair market value of the property.[16] Fair market value is that "sum of money which a person desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be given and received therefor."[17] Judicial determination is needed to arrive at the exact amount due to the property owner.

GR No. 170147

2009-01-30

REPUBLIC v. SPS. AGUSTIN AND IMELDA CANCIO

CORONA, J.

(a) The classification and use for which the property is suited; (b) The developmental costs for improving the land; (c) The value declared by the owners; (d) The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity; (e) The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or demolition of certain improvements on the land and for the value of improvements thereon; (f) The size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of the land; (g) The price of the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as well as documentary evidence presented; and (h) Such facts and events as to enable the affected property owners to have sufficient funds to acquire similarly-situated lands of approximate areas as those required from them by the government, and thereby rehabilitate themselves as early as possible. This must be so as just compensation should take into account the consequential benefits and damages which may arise from the expropriation.[22] Furthermore, it is well to remember that the concept of just compensation does not mean fairness to the property owner alone. It must also be just to the public which ultimately bears the cost of expropriation.[23]

GR No.125267

2008-02-18

EL ORO ENGRAVER CORPORATION v. CA and EVERETT CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY

CARPIO, J.

As a general rule, factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court. This rule is subject to exceptions, such as when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory.[7]

GR No. 168533

2008-02-04

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ANGEL T. DOMINGO

CARPIO, J.

Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that no private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation. As a concept in the Bill of Rights, just compensation is defined as the fair or market value of the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell.[34]

GR NO. 157186

2007-10-19

ACTIVE REALTY v. BIENVENIDO FERNANDEZ

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Thus, the Manifestation dated June 26, 2003 of Atty. Romeo A. Deles, former counsel of respondent, that the representatives of the petitioner should be punished for direct contempt for deliberate forum shopping does not deserve consideration. First, it was filed by a former counsel; and second, the issue of forum shopping was raised by respondent before the Court for the first time in the June 26, 2003 Manifestation. Well-settled is the rule that higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below, but ventilated for the first time only in a motion for reconsideration or on appeal.[70]

GR NO. 162779

2007-06-15

HEIRS OF MATEO PIDACAN v. AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE

QUISUMBING, J.

When private property is rendered uninhabitable by an entity with the power to exercise eminent domain, the taking is deemed complete.[12] Taking occurs not only when the government actually deprives or dispossesses the property owner of his property or of its ordinary use, but also when there is a practical destruction or material impairment of the value of his property.[13]

GR NO. 160656

2007-06-15

REPUBLIC v. ISMAEL ANDAYA

QUISUMBING, J.

We are, however, unable to sustain the Republic's argument that it is not liable to pay consequential damages if in enforcing the legal easement on Andaya's property, the remaining area would be rendered unusable and uninhabitable. "Taking," in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, occurs not only when the government actually deprives or dispossesses the property owner of his property or of its ordinary use, but also when there is a practical destruction or material impairment of the value of his property.[12] Using this standard, there was undoubtedly a taking of the remaining area of Andaya's property. True, no burden was imposed thereon and Andaya still retained title and possession of the property. But, as correctly observed by the Board and affirmed by the courts a quo, the nature and the effect of the floodwalls would deprive Andaya of the normal use of the remaining areas. It would prevent ingress and egress to the property and turn it into a catch basin for the floodwaters coming from the Agusan River.

GR NO. 164079

2007-04-03

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. DR. ANTERO BONGBONG

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Just compensation is the fair value of the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell, fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. This rule holds true when the property is taken before the filing of an expropriation suit, and even if it is the property owner who brings the action for compensation.[43] The nature and character of the land at the time of its taking is the principal criterion for determining how much just compensation should be given to the landowner.[44] In determining just compensation, all the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities, should be considered.[45]

	GR No. 181892 2015-09-08	REPUBLIC v. JESUS M. MUPAS BRION, J.
If we adopt the new replacement cost method, PIATCO would be compensated for more than what it had actually lost. We must remember that the concept of just compensation does not imply fairness to the property owner alone. In an eminent domain situation, compensation must likewise be just to the public which ultimately bears the cost of expropriation. The property owner is entitled to compensation only for what he actually loses; what he loses is only the actual value of the property at the time of the taking.[231]
	GR No. 179334 2013-07-01	SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. SPS. HERACLEO AND RAMONA TECSON PERALTA, J.
Even if we squarely deal with the issues of laches and prescription, the same must still fail. Laches is principally a doctrine of equity which is applied to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation or in an injustice.[27] This doctrine finds no application in this case, since there is nothing inequitable in giving due course to respondents' claim. Both equity and the law direct that a property owner should be compensated if his property is taken for public use.[28] Neither shall prescription bar respondents' claim following the long-standing rule "that where private property is taken by the Government for public use without first acquiring title thereto either through expropriation or negotiated sale, the owner's action to recover the land or the value thereof does not prescribe."[29]
	GR No. 185124 2012-01-25	REPUBLIC v. RURAL BANK OF KABACAN SERENO, J.
Moreover, factual findings of the CA are generally binding on this Court. The rule admits of exceptions, though, such as when the factual findings of the appellate court and the trial court are contradictory, or when the findings are not supported by the evidence on record.[42] These exceptions, however, are not present in the instant case.
	GR No. 164195 2010-10-12	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
We subsequently upheld Republic's 12% per annum interest rate on the unpaid expropriation compensation in the following cases: Reyes v. National Housing Authority,[19] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,[20] Republic v. Court of Appeals,[21] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial,[22] Philippine Ports Authority v. Rosales-Bondoc,[23] and Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority.[24]
	GR No. 162474 2009-10-13	VICENTE P. EUSEBIO v. JOVITO M. LUIS PERALTA, J.
At the outset, petitioners must be disabused of their belief that respondents' action for recovery of their property, which had been taken for public use, or to claim just compensation therefor is already barred by prescription. In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[5] the Court emphasized "that where private property is taken by the Government for public use without first acquiring title thereto either through expropriation or negotiated sale, the owner's action to recover the land or the value thereof does not prescribe." The Court went on to remind government agencies not to exercise the power of eminent domain with wanton disregard for property rights as Section 9, Article III of the Constitution provides that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." [6]
	GR NO. 160379 2009-08-14	REPUBLIC THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. CA CARPIO, J.
The procedure for determining just compensation is set forth in Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 5 of Rule 67 partly states that "[u]pon the rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more than three (3) competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just compensation for the property sought to be taken." However, we held in Republic v. Court of Appeals[28] that Rule 67 presupposes a prior filing of complaint for eminent domain with the appropriate court by the expropriator. If no such complaint is filed, the expropriator is considered to have violated procedural requirements, and hence, waived the usual procedure prescribed in Rule 67, including the appointment of commissioners to ascertain just compensation.[29] In National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[30] we clarified that when there is no action for expropriation and the case involves only a complaint for damages or just compensation, the provisions of the Rules of Court on ascertainment of just compensation (i.e., provisions of Rule 67) are no longer applicable, and a trial before commissioners is dispensable, thus: In this case, NPC appropriated Pobre's Property without resort to expropriation proceedings. NPC dismissed its own complaint for the second expropriation. At no point did NPC institute expropriation proceedings for the lots outside the 5,554 square-meter portion subject of the second expropriation. The only issues that the trial court had to settle were the amount of just compensation and damages that NPC had to pay Pobre.
	GR No. 166973 2009-02-10	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN ONG CO TINGA, J.
Eminent domain "is the inherent power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property to particular use to promote public welfare."[14] In the exercise of its power of eminent domain, just compensation must be given to the property owner to satisfy the requirements of Sec. 9, Art. III[15] of the Constitution. Just compensation is the fair market value of the property.[16] Fair market value is that "sum of money which a person desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be given and received therefor."[17] Judicial determination is needed to arrive at the exact amount due to the property owner.
	GR No. 170147 2009-01-30	REPUBLIC v. SPS. AGUSTIN AND IMELDA CANCIO CORONA, J.
(a) The classification and use for which the property is suited; (b) The developmental costs for improving the land; (c) The value declared by the owners; (d) The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity; (e) The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or demolition of certain improvements on the land and for the value of improvements thereon; (f) The size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of the land; (g) The price of the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as well as documentary evidence presented; and (h) Such facts and events as to enable the affected property owners to have sufficient funds to acquire similarly-situated lands of approximate areas as those required from them by the government, and thereby rehabilitate themselves as early as possible. This must be so as just compensation should take into account the consequential benefits and damages which may arise from the expropriation.[22] Furthermore, it is well to remember that the concept of just compensation does not mean fairness to the property owner alone. It must also be just to the public which ultimately bears the cost of expropriation.[23]
	GR No.125267 2008-02-18	EL ORO ENGRAVER CORPORATION v. CA and EVERETT CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CARPIO, J.
As a general rule, factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court. This rule is subject to exceptions, such as when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory.[7]
	GR No. 168533 2008-02-04	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ANGEL T. DOMINGO CARPIO, J.
Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that no private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation. As a concept in the Bill of Rights, just compensation is defined as the fair or market value of the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell.[34]
	GR NO. 157186 2007-10-19	ACTIVE REALTY v. BIENVENIDO FERNANDEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Thus, the Manifestation dated June 26, 2003 of Atty. Romeo A. Deles, former counsel of respondent, that the representatives of the petitioner should be punished for direct contempt for deliberate forum shopping does not deserve consideration. First, it was filed by a former counsel; and second, the issue of forum shopping was raised by respondent before the Court for the first time in the June 26, 2003 Manifestation. Well-settled is the rule that higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below, but ventilated for the first time only in a motion for reconsideration or on appeal.[70]
	GR NO. 162779 2007-06-15	HEIRS OF MATEO PIDACAN v. AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE QUISUMBING, J.
When private property is rendered uninhabitable by an entity with the power to exercise eminent domain, the taking is deemed complete.[12] Taking occurs not only when the government actually deprives or dispossesses the property owner of his property or of its ordinary use, but also when there is a practical destruction or material impairment of the value of his property.[13]
	GR NO. 160656 2007-06-15	REPUBLIC v. ISMAEL ANDAYA QUISUMBING, J.
We are, however, unable to sustain the Republic's argument that it is not liable to pay consequential damages if in enforcing the legal easement on Andaya's property, the remaining area would be rendered unusable and uninhabitable. "Taking," in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, occurs not only when the government actually deprives or dispossesses the property owner of his property or of its ordinary use, but also when there is a practical destruction or material impairment of the value of his property.[12] Using this standard, there was undoubtedly a taking of the remaining area of Andaya's property. True, no burden was imposed thereon and Andaya still retained title and possession of the property. But, as correctly observed by the Board and affirmed by the courts a quo, the nature and the effect of the floodwalls would deprive Andaya of the normal use of the remaining areas. It would prevent ingress and egress to the property and turn it into a catch basin for the floodwaters coming from the Agusan River.
	GR NO. 164079 2007-04-03	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. DR. ANTERO BONGBONG CALLEJO, SR., J.
Just compensation is the fair value of the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell, fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. This rule holds true when the property is taken before the filing of an expropriation suit, and even if it is the property owner who brings the action for compensation.[43] The nature and character of the land at the time of its taking is the principal criterion for determining how much just compensation should be given to the landowner.[44] In determining just compensation, all the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities, should be considered.[45]

REPUBLIC v. CA