1. COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES TO TESTIFY BEFORE COMMISSIONERS AS TO VALUE OF EXPROPRIATED LAND. — A witness who personally knows the expropriated land, either because he has possessed it as owner or has administered it or lived on it for a long time, who has bought and sold much land situated in the same municipality, who has been engaged in farming and business and has acquired experience and knowledge of the value of lands in the locality, is competent to testify on the value of said land. (Manila Railroad Co. v. Alano, 36 Phil., 500.)

2. ASSESSMENT OF VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS. — When the land is preferably intended for the raising of a given crop or the planting of trees of a certain kind, although these, or the crop be deemed improvements of the land they should not be appraised apart from the land as they are an integral part thereof and their value is inherent or forms a part of that of the land. (Manila Railroad Co. V8. Aguilar, 35 Phil., 118.)

3. ID. — When the land is not particularly adapted to any class of plants, and it appears on the contrary that it is planted with several classes of trees and plants, said improvements may be valued separately from the land, inasmuch as the owners of expropriated lands are entitled to be indemnified for the improvements thereon, as has been declared by this court in the case of Manila Railroad Co. v. Velasquez (32 Phil., 286).

4. LEGAL INTEREST ON VALUE OF EXPROPRIATED LANDS. — This court has held in unequivocal terms that the owners of expropriated lands are entitled to recover interest from the date that the company exercising the right of eminent domain takes possession of the condemned lands, and the amounts granted by the court shall cease to earn interest only from the moment they are paid to the owners or are deposited in court. (Philippine Railway Co. v. Solon, 13 Phil., 34 and Philippine Railway Co. v. Duran. 33 Phil. . 166.)

On February 17, 1914, the plaintiff, The Manila Railroad Co., instituted this action in the Court of First Instance of Albay, for the purpose of condemning the lands described in the complaint, alleging that it was necessary for it to acquire said lands for the construction of a railway branch from Legaspi to Nueva Caceres, that it had the right to do so in accordance with the franchise granted to it by Acts Nos. 1510 and 1905 of the Philippine Legislature, and that it could not acquire said lands through extra-judicial transactions as the true owners of some of these lands were unknown to the plaintiff, while those that are known demand highly excessive prices which are not the true value of their lands. The plaintiff asked that, after trial, it be declared owner of the lands described in the complaint and that the reasonable and true value, which it should pay to those who show themselves to be the true owners of said lands, be fixed.

The owners, who appeared and answered the complaint, are Eleuteria Diaz, Eugenia Pinilla, Ceferino Guanzon, Gutierrez Hermanos, and Florencia Quijano. They admitted the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the lands described in the complaint, and they merely stated the different sums which they claimed as compensation for their lands, the improvements existing thereon at the time of their occupation by the plaintiff and the damages occasioned to the unexpropriated part of their lots due to the segregation of that occupied by the railway line.

With the consent of the parties, three commissioners were appointed to hear the evidence, assess the value of the lands sought to be expropriated, and submit to the court a complete and detailed report of the proceedings had, in accordance with sections 243 and 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

After the commissioners had been appointed, Domingo Valenciano appeared and, with the court’s permission, intervened in this case with the object of presenting evidence upon the value of parcel No. 334 in the plaintiff’s plan, and the amount of damages caused to the remainder of the lot from which said parcel was taken.

The evidence having been taken before the commissioners, two of them submitted their report to the court on November 17, 1916, stating: (1) That they assessed the value of parcel No. 280, which belonged to Gutierrez Hermanos, at P0.20 per square meter, independently of the improvements, to which they gave a total value of P18,820.10, and they granted to said commercial firm the sum of P5,000 as damages to the remaining part of their lot; (2) that they fixed the value of parcel No. 282, which belonged to Eleuterio Diaz at P1 per square meter, excluding the improvements thereon, to which they gave the value of P433.50, and they assessed the damages to the unexpropriated part of the lot at P150; (3) that they gave the value of P2.50 per square meter to parcels Nos. 330 and 334, which belonged to Eugenia Pinilla and Domingo Valenciano, respectively, and they adjudicated to the spouses Antonio Porcalla and Eugenia Pinilla the additional sum of P400 for their house on said land, and to Domingo Valenciano the sum of P560 for the damages occasioned to him by the transfer of his house on said land; and (4) that they assessed the value of parcel No. 353, which belonged to Ceferino Guanzon at P2 per square meter, excluding the improvements thereon, which they valued at P500, and they further granted him the sum of P300 for the damages suffered by him in removing to another place one of the three houses that he had on said land and a further sum of P300 for the value of the two other houses thereon.

The third commissioner, who did not sign the preceding report, presented on March 1st, a dissenting report, in which he stated: (1) That parcel No. 280, belonging to Gutierrez Hermanos, should be assessed at P0.50 per square meter, including its improvements, and that instead of P5,000, only the sum of P4,000 should be granted to it, as damages caused to the unexpropriated part of the land; (2) that parcel No. 282 belonging to Eleuterio Diaz should be assessed at P1 per square meter, including its improvements; (3) that he agrees that the value of P2 per square meter should be given to parcel No. 253 belonging to Ceferino Guanzon, but he assessed the value of the trees thereon at P300 only, and the damages occasioned to him by the removal of his house to another place at P300, and the value of the two houses that were destroyed at P200; and (4) that he completely agrees with the report of the other commissioners with respect to parcels Nos. 330 and 334 belonging to Antonio Porcalla and Domingo Valenciano.

The plaintiff objected to the report of the commissioners, alleging that said commissioners have adopted wrong principles in the assessment of the lands, and the majority of them assessed the value of the lands separately from their improvements, fixing for each of them excessive and exorbitant prices.

On February 26, 1918, the court rendered judgment, approving the report of the majority of the commissioners, and adjudicating to the plaintiff the ownership of the lands described in the complaint, but condemning it to pay to their respective owners the sums assigned by the commissioners to each of them, with legal interest from February 17, 1914, until full payment.

With respect to parcel No. 14, belonging to Florencia Quijano, but not mentioned in the report of the commissioners, the court also rendered judgment, adjudicating it to the plaintiff and condemning the latter to pay to said Florencia Quijano the sum of P559, with interest from May 20, 1908, until the date of payment.

The plaintiff excepted to this judgment and at the same time moved for a new trial, on the ground that the judgment was manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence and the law. The motion having been overruled, the plaintiff excepted to the order overruling the motion, and appealed the case to the Supreme Court by means of a bill of exceptions.

This appeal was taken by the plaintiff from the whole judgment, which deals, among others, with parcel No. 14, belonging to Florencia Quijano. But we do not find in the record before us the evidence with respect to this parcel, the report of the commissioners thereon, and consequently there is no other course for us to take but to dismiss the appeal with respect to parcel No. 14. Furthermore, nowhere in the record does it appear that the appellant has furnished counsel for Florencia Quijano with a copy of his brief, as required by article 21 of the Rules of this Court; and therefore, it is proper to dismiss the appeal, in accordance with article 23 of said Rules, in so far as parcel No. 14, belonging to Florencia Quijano, is concerned.

The errors assigned by the appellant in its brief are the following: (1) The act of the court in approving the report of the commissioners of appraisal and basing his judgment thereon; (2) the act of the court in granting legal interest to the defendants; and (3) the act of the court in denying the motion for new trial.

In discussing the first error imputed to the court below, counsel for the appellant argues that the evidence of the defendants, upon which the report of the commissioners is based, is incompetent, inasmuch as it consists of mere opinions of witnesses, who are not shown to have intervened in real estate transactions, either as brokers or in any other capacity that may give them knowledge of the value of lands "in said localities." The appellant also attacks the report of the commissioners on the ground that they did not consider the evidence presented by said appellant. The question is therefore raised as to whether the evidence supports the conclusions of the majority of the commissioners. To decide it, we will deal separately with the five parcels covered by the report of the commissioners.

Parcel No. 280. — This parcel is part of the hacienda known as "Hacienda de Mapulangbato," belonging to Gutierrez Hermanos. It is land suitable to be planted to hemp and coconut. It is situated in Ligao, Albay, a small part being in the municipality of Guinobatan.

Constancio Benito declared that he has been living in Ligao for about twenty-two years; that he had sold to Marian Lim a part of the land administered by him and situate about 60 meters from the Hacienda de Mapulangbato; that said hacienda is of greater value than the land sold by him that the price obtained by him at said sale was P0.29