SECOND DIVISION
GR. No. 194190, January 25, 2017
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 praying that the assailed October 14, 2010 Decision2 of the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104178 be reversed and set aside, and that in lieu of it, the Orders dated October 8, 20073 and May 19, 20084 of Branch 257 of the Regional Trial Court of Paraiiaque City be reinstated.
The Regional Trial Court's October 8, 2007 Order required the Department of Public Works and Highways to pay respondents Francisco and Carmelita Llamas (the Llamas Spouses) P12,000.00 per square meter as compensation for the expropriated 41-square-meter portion of a lot that they owned.5 The same Order denied the Llamas Spouses' prater that they be similarly compensated for two (2) expropriated road lots.6 The Regional Trial Court's May 19, 2008 Order denied the Llamas Spouses' Motion for Reconsideration.7
In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals set aside the Regional Trial Court's October 8, 2007 and May 19, 2008 Orders and required the Department of Public Works and Highways to similarly compensate the Llamas Spouses for the two (2) road lots at P12,000.00 per square meter.8
On April 23, 1990, the Department of Public Works and Highways initiated an action for expropriation for the widening of Dr. A. Santos Ave. (also known as Sucat Road) in what was then the Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila.9 This action was brought against 26 defendants, none of whom are respondents in this case.10
On November 2, 1993, the Commissioners appointed by the Regional Trial Court in the expropriation case submitted a resolution recommending that just compensation for the expropriated areas be set to P12,000.00 per square meter.11
On January 27, 1994, the Llamas Spouses filed before the Regional Trial Court a "Most Urgent and Respectful Motion for Leave to be Allowed Intervention as Defendants-Intervenors-Oppositors."12 They claimed that they were excluded from the expropriation case despite having properties affected by the road widening project. After a hearing on this Motion, the Regional Trial Court allowed the Llamas Spouses to file their Answer-in-Intervention.13
The Llamas Spouses filed their Answer-in-Intervention on March 21, 1994.14 In it, they claimed that a total area of 298 square meters was taken from them during the road widening project:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(1) 102 square meters from a parcel of land identified as Lot 4, Block 3, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 217167; (2) 84 square meters from a parcel of land identified as Lot 1, covered by TCT No. 179165; and (3) 112 square meters from a parcel of land identified as Lot 2, also covered by TCT No. 179165.15
Subdivision owners are mandated to set aside such open spaces before their proposed subdivision plans may be approved by the government authorities, and that such open spaces shall be devoted exclusively for the use of the general public and the subdivision owner need not be compensated for the same. A subdivision owner must comply with such requirement before the subdivision plan is approved and the authority to sell is issued.42
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned orders of respondent judge dated July 10, 1990 and September 26, 1990 are hereby reversed and set aside. Respondent QCDFC is hereby directed to execute a deed of donation of the remaining undeveloped portion of Road Lot 1 consisting of about 18 meters wide in favor of the Quezon City government, otherwise, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City is hereby directed to cancel the registration of said Road Lot 1 in the name of respondent QCDFC under TCT No. 112637 and to issue a new title covering said property in the name of the Quezon City government. Costs against respondent QCDFC.
SO ORDERED.43 (Emphasis supplied)
[T]he dictum in G.R. No. 95522, White Plains Association, Inc. vs. Legaspi[,] that the developer can be compelled to execute a deed of donation of the undeveloped strip of Road Lot 1 and, in the event QCDFC refuses to donate the land, that the Register of Deeds of Quezon City may be ordered to cancel its old title and issue a new one in the name of the city was questioned by the respondent QCDFC as contrary to law. We agree with QCDFC that the final judgment in G.R. No. 95522 is not what appears in the published on February 7, 1991 decision in White Plains Association, Inc. vs. Legaspi. [Rather, it] is the following resolution issued three (3) years later, on July 27, 1991 [sic], which states, inter alia:". . . (T)he Court is constrained to grant the Instant Motion for Reconsideration but only insofar as the motion seeks to delete from the dispositive portion of the decision of 07 February 1991 the order of this Court requiring the execution of the deed of donation in question and directing the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, in the event that such deed is not executed, to cancel the title of QCDFC and to issue a new one in the name of the Quezon City government. It may well be that the public respondents would not be aversed [sic] to such modification of the Court's decision since they shall in effect have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
WHEREFORE the second motion for reconsideration is hereby partly granted by MODIFYING the dispositive portion of this Court's decision of 07 February 1991 and to now read as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary'WHEREFORE the petition is GRANTED. The questioned orders of respondent judge dated July 10, 1990 and September 25 1990 are hereby reversed and set aside. Costs against respondent QCDFC.
SO ORDERED."'46 (Emphasis supplied)
Only after a subdivision owner has developed a road may it be donated to the local government, if it so desires. On the other hand, a subdivision owner may even opt to retain ownership of private subdivision roads, as in fact is the usual practice of exclusive residential subdivisions for example those in Makati City.48
SEC. 31. Roads, Alleys, Sidewalks and Open Spaces. — The owner as developer of a subdivision shall provide adequate roads, alleys and sidewalks. For subdivision projects one (1) hectare or more, the owner or developer shall reserve thirty percent (30%) of the gross area for open space. Such open space shall have the following standards allocated exclusively for parks, playgrounds and recreational use:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
- 9% of gross area for high density or social housing (66 to 100 family lot per gross hectare).
- 7% of gross area for medium-density or economic housing (21 to 65 family lot per gross hectare).
- 3.5% of gross area low-density or open market housing (20 family lots and below per gross hectare).
These areas reserved for parks, playgrounds and recreational use shall be non-alienable public lands, and non-buildable. The plans of the subdivision project shall include tree planting on such parts of the subdivision as may be designated by the Authority.
Upon their completion as certified to by the Authority, the roads, alleys, sidewalks and playgrounds shall be donated by the owner or developer to the city or municipality and it shall be mandatory for the local governments to accept; provided, however, that the parks and playgrounds may be donated to the Homeowners Association of the project with the consent of the city or municipality concerned. No portion of the parks and playgrounds donated thereafter shall be converted to any other purpose or purposes. (Emphasis supplied)
Article 725. Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it.
III
Delineated roads and streets, whether part of a subdivision or segregated for public use, remain private and will remain as such until conveyed to the government by donation or through expropriation proceedings. An owner may not be forced to donate his or her property even if it has been delineated as road lots because that would partake of an illegal taking. He or she may even choose to retain said properties.56
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 35-132. The Petition was filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Id. at 134-146. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Sesinando E. Villon of the Fifth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 478-485. The Order was signed by Judge Rolando G. How.
4 Id. at 531-532. The Order was signed by Judge Rolando G. How.
5 Id. at 485.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 532.
8 Id. at 145-146.
9 Id. at 38-39. The expropriation case was docketed as Civil Case No. 90-1069.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 40.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 41.
14 Id. at 42.
15 Id. at 42.
16 Id. at 43.
17 Id. at 44.
18 Id. at 45-46.
19 Id. at 573-575.
20 Id. at 46-47.
21 Id. at 55-56.
22 Id.
23 Id. at 56.
24 Id. at 78.
25 Id. at 77.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 78-79.
28 Id. at 79-80.
29 Id. at 80.
30 Id. at 478-485.
31 Id. at 483.
32 Id.
33 Id. at 531-532.
34 Id. at 134-146.
35 Id. at 145-146.
36 Id. at 146.
37 Id. at 140.
38 RULES OF COURT, Rule 67, sec. 10 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 10. Rights of Plaintiff After Judgment and Payment.—Upon payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of the compensation fixed by the judgment, with legal interest thereon from the taking of the possession of the property, or after tender to him of the amount so fixed and payment of the costs, the plaintiff shall have the right to enter upon the property expropriated and to appropriate it for the public use or purpose defined in the judgment, or to retain it should he have taken immediate possession thereof under the provisions of section 2 hereof. If the defendant and his counsel absent themselves from the court, or decline to receive the amount tendered, the same shall be ordered to be deposited in court and such deposit shall have the same effect as actual payment thereof to the defendant or the person ultimately adjudged entitled thereto.
39Rollo, p. 94.
40 271 Phil. 806 (1991) [Per J. Gancayco, First Division].
41 Id. at 807.
42 Id. at 817.
43 Id. at 818-819.
44White Plains Association, Inc. v. Legaspi, 358 Phil. 184, 190 (1998) [Per J. Martinez, Second Division].
45 358 Phil. 184 (1998) [Per J. Martinez, Second Division].
46 Id. at 200-201.
47 Id. at 201. N.b., From Republic v. Ortigas, GR. No. 171496, March 3, 2014 < http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/march2014/171496.pdf > 9 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
There is taking when the following elements are present:
- The government must enter the private property;
- The entrance into the private property must be indefinite or permanent;
- There is color of legal authority in the entry into the property;
- The property is devoted to public use or purpose;
- The use of property for public use removed from the owner all beneficial enjoyment of the property.
48 Id. at 202-203.
49 CIVIL CODE, art. 726 provides:Article 726. When a person gives to another a thing or right on account of the latter's merits or of the services rendered by him to the donor, provided they do not constitute a demandable debt, or when the gift imposes upon the donee a burden which is less than the value of the thing given, there is also a donation.
50Tayoto v. Heirs of Kusop, 263 Phil. 269, 280 (1990) [Per C.J. Fernan, Third Division].
51Rollo, p. 141.
52 Id.
53Albon v. Fernando, 526 Phil. 630, 637 (2006) [Per J. Corona, Second Division].
54Abellana, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 284 Phil. 449, 453 (1992) [Per J. Grino-Aquino, First Division]. See also Woodridge School, Inc. v. ARB Construction Co., Inc., 545 Phil. 83, 88 (2007) [Per J. Corona, First Division].
55 G.R. No. 171496, March 3, 2014 < http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/march2014/171496.pdf > [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
56 Id. at 10, citing White Plains v. Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 184, 207 (1998) [Per J. Martinez, Second Division].