Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 36096. August 16, 1933. ]

THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF RIZAL, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FILOMENA CARO DE ARAULLO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. AMALIA ARCEGA DE BASA and RAMON AGTARAP, Defendants-Appellants.

Acting Provincial Fiscal Carlos,, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Antonio Gonzalez, for defendant-appellant Arcega de Basa.

Feria & La O for defendant-appellant Agtarap.

Ross, Lawrence & Selph and Miguel F. Trias, for defendant-appellee Caro de Araullo.

Ramon Diokno, for defendants-appellees Lim Ang Et. Al.

Juan Salcedo, for defendants-appellees Aquilina de la Cruz and Alejandro Anareta.

Cardenas & Casal, for defendant-appellee Jose Rueda Areas.

J.W. Ferrier, for defendants-appellees Q. S. Lockart and L. H. Golucke.

Ricardo L. Ortega, for defendants-appellees Andres G. Wieneke and Alfredo G. Wieneke.

Jose Ma. Cavanna, for defendants-appellees T. F. Mc-Intyre, J. J. Dunbar and Angela Cordero.

Gutierrez Repide & Monzon, for defendant-appellee Luisa Atanacio.

Araneta, De Joya, Zaragoza & Araneta, for defendant-appellee Roy S. Springer.

Adolfo A. Scheerer, for defendant-appellee A. Otto Scheerer.

Castor P. Cruz, for defendant-appellee Donato Espinosa.

SYLLABUS


1. EMINENT DOMAIN; VALUE OF PROPERTY EXPROPRIATED; MEASURE OF DAMAGES. — The value of the property expropriated was greatly enhanced between the time when the extension of Taft Avenue was laid out and the date when the condemnation proceedings were filed. Its value had further increased when the commissioners held hearings a year and a half after these proceedings were filed. The value of the property was enhanced by the purpose for which it was taken. The owners of the land have no right to recover damages for this unearned increment resulting from the construction of the public improvement for which the land was taken. To permit them to do so would be to allow them to recover more than the value of the land at the time when it was taken, which is the true measure of the damages, or just compensation, and would discourage the construction of important public improvements.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — As the Supreme Court of the United States said in its decision of the case of United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Company (229 U.S., 53), which decision was followed by this court in the case of the Manila Railroad Co. v. Caligsihan (40 Phil., 326), the property is to be considered in its condition and situation at the time it is taken, and not as enhanced by the purpose for which it is taken.

3. ID.; ID.; MARKET VALUE OF LAND. — "The fundamental doctrine that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation requires that the owner shall receive the market value of his property at the time of the taking, unaffected by any subsequent change in the condition of the property." (20 C. J., 826, 828.)

4. ID.; ID.; CONDITION OF PROPERTY WHEN TAKEN. — "There is some diversity of opinion as to what constitutes a taking where the right of way is acquired by proceedings in advance of actual occupancy; but where, as in this case, the possession is taken by consent of the owner, followed by the location and construction of the road, the time of going into such actual possession is clearly the time of taking, rather than the period of condemnation proceedings, which, for some reason, may have been postponed." (Weir v. St. Louis, Ft. S. & W. R. Co., 40 Kan., 130; 19 Pac. Rep., 322.)

5. ID.; ID.; INCREASE AND DECREASE OF VALUE OF LAND. — The conclusion of the trial court to the effect that there is a steady increase in the value of land is not well founded. Land, like other property, increases or decreases in value according to the general economic conditions prevailing, and for special reasons, but that is a matter of proof.

6. ID.; ID.; VALUATION OF THE COMMISSIONERS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE EVIDENCE. — The valuation of the commission, which was accepted by the trial court, is not sustained by the evidence, and reports not based on the evidence should not be accepted. The commissioners disregarded the evidence and substituted their opinion as to the value of the property, based on the inspection made by them. This they were not authorized to do. (Manila Railroad Co. v. Aguilar, 35 Phil., 118.) not authorized


D E C I S I O N


VICKERS, J.:


This is an appeal by the provincial government of Rizal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of that province dated March 21, 1931, and the additional decision of March 23, 1931, and the order or decision of April 17, 1931, fixing the damages to be paid by the plaintiff for the property expropriated for the extension of Taft Avenue from the limits of the City of Manila, through the municipality of Pasay, to its intersection with the Manila South Road. Fifty-two lots and the improvements on ten lots are involved in the appeal as follows:

Lot No. 1 and improvements of Filomena C. de Araullo,

Lot No. 3 and improvements of J. M. McIntyre,

Lot No. 7 and improvements of Luisa Atanacio,

Lot No. 8 of Luisa Atanacio,

Lot No. 11 of Adolfo Otto Scheerer,

Lot No. 13 and improvements of Donato Espinosa,

Lot No. 26 and improvements of B. M. Lauritzen,

Lot No. 30 and improvements of Jose Rueda Arias,

Lot No. 31 of Joaquin Lim Ang,

Lot No. 33 of Gonzalo Go Kiolay,

Lot No. 34 of Roy S. Springer,

Lot No. 35 of Roy S. Springer,

Lot No. 37 of Emiliana Cordova, Lot No. 39 of Agapito Sanchez,

Lot No. 41 and improvements of J. J. Dunbar,

Lot No. 42 of Aurelia Arcega de Basa,

Lot No. 45 of Aurelia Arcega de Basa

Lot No. 49 of Andres and Alfredo Wieneke,

Lot No. 52 of Aquilina San Miguel,

Lot No. 53 of Jose Villanueva,

Lot No. 54 of Proceso Orca,

Lot No. 54-A of Ambrosio Hernandez,

Lot No. 55 of Pascual Villanueva,

Lot No. 56 of Flaviano de la Cruz,

Lot No. 57 of Pascual Villanueva,

Lot No. 58 of Flaviano de los Santos,

Lot No. 60 of Ines Vda. de Taylo,

Lot No. 61 of Ines Vda. d Taylo,

Lot No. 61-A of Josefa de los Santos,

Lot No. 61-B of Canuto Cuneta, Lot No. 62 of Esteban Marcelino,

Lot No. 63 of Esteban Marcelino,

Lot No. 64 of Damaso Ignacio,

Lot No. 64-A of Alfredo Roench,

Lot No. 65 of Alfredo Roench, Lot No. 66 and improvements of Aquilina de la Cruz,

Lot No. 67 of Enrique Vito Cruz,

Lot No. 69 of Carlos Cruz,

Lot No. 72 of Flaviano de los Santos,

Lot No. 73 — Improvements only — of (a) Q. S. Lockart and (b) L. H. Golucke,

Lot No. 76 of Angela Cordero,

Lot No. 77 of Ramon Agtarap,

Lot No. 78 of Ramon Agtarap,

Lot No. 86 of Jacinta Z. de Cailles,

Lot No. 87 of Simeon Taylo,

Lot No. 88 of Flaviano de los Santos,

Lot No. 92 of Guillermo Musñgi,

Lot No. 94 of Proceso Orca,

Lot No. 96 and improvements of Felisa Cruz,

Lot No. 98 of Flaviano de los Santos,

Lot No. 100 of Vicente Reyes del Rosario,

Lot No. 101 of Anastacio Dizon,

Lot No. 102 of Alejandro Anareta,

The defendant Amalia Arcega de Basa also appealed from the decision of March 21, 1931 with respect to lots 42 and 45, and the defendant Ramon Agtarap as to lots 77 and 78.

The complaint was filed on May 31, 1928. Defendants appeared and admitted plaintiff’s right to expropriate the property in question, and the court appointed four commissions composed of —

(a) Pedro Magsalin, Tomas Arg

Top of Page