SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 215107, February 24, 2016
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE TOLL REGULATORY BOARD, Petitioner, v. C.C. UNSON COMPANY, INC., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the March 21, 2014 Decision1 and the October 22, 2014 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 96407, which affirmed the December 23, 2009 Decision3 and the July 6, 2010 Order4 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Calamba City (RTC), in an expropriation case docketed as Civil Case No. 3818-05-C.
On August 3, 2005, a complaint for expropriation5 was filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), through the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB). Under Section 3(c) of Presidential Decree No. 1112,6 the TRB was authorized to condemn private property for public use upon payment of just compensation.
Petitioner, through the TRB, sought to implement the South Luzon Tollway Extension Project (SLEP), particularly the Calamba City, Laguna -Sto. Tomas, Batangas Section, which aimed to extend the South Luzon Expressway for faster travel in the region.
Respondent C.C. Unson Company, Inc. (Unson) was the owner of the affected properties which were described as follows: (1) Lot No. 6-B (Lot 6B) under Transfer Certificate Title (TCT) No. T-57646,7 covering an area of 8,780 sq.m; and (2) Lot 4-C-2 (Lot 4C2) under TCT No. T-51596,8 covering an area of 16,947 sq.m. It sought to expropriate Lot 6B and Lot 4C2 in the amount of P2,250.00 per square meter (sq.m.)
On November 15, 2006, petitioner filed its Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and to Admit Attached Amended Complaint.9 In the Amended Complaint,10 petitioner indicated that Lot 4C2 should have a lower zonal value of P1,050.00 per sq.m instead of P2,250.00 per sq.m., pursuant to the certification11 and tax declaration12 issued by Revenue District Office No. 56 and the City Assessor's Office.
In its Answer,13 as well as in its Answer to Amended Complaint,14 Unson, by way of affirmative defense, alleged that both properties had been classified and assessed as residential. Thus, Lot 4C2 should have a higher value ranging from P5,000.00 to P10,000.00 per sq.m.
On December 4, 2006, Unson filed the Urgent Twin Motion: To Release Initial Deposit and to Order Plaintiff to make Additional Deposit (twin motion).15 It reiterated that Lot 4C2 should have a higher valuation because the affected areas were classified as residential with zonal value in the amount of P2,250.00 per sq.m. Accordingly, Unson sought the release of an additional amount of P20,336,400.00 to complete the total of P38,130,750.00 which was required for Lot 4C2. It also prayed that petitioner release the amount of P37,549,350.00 pending compliance with the additional deposit of P20,336,400.00.
On December 20, 2006, petitioner filed the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession16 (December 20, 2006 Motion) alleging that it had already deposited P37,549,350.00 or 100% of the total zonal value for the said properties with the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). It prayed that a writ of possession be issued in its favor and that the RTC order the Register of Deeds of Calamba City to register the said writ and annotate the same in the subject TCTs.
On December 21, 2006, the RTC issued the Order17 granting the December 20, 2006 motion and the motion to release initial deposit. The RTC further directed the parties to submit their nominees to the commission who would determine just compensation.
On January 3, 2007, petitioner filed its Motion for Issuance of Order of Expropriation18 praying that an order for expropriation be issued in its favor.
In its Order,19 dated June 15, 2007, the RTC directed petitioner to pay the additional amount of P20,336,400.00. To quote the RTC:
To the mind of the Court, the affected portion of TCT No. T-51596, particularly lot 4-C-2, is classified as residential and the corresponding BIR zonal value of said affected portion should be computed at Php2,250.00 per square meter. Hence, plaintiff should make an additional deposit equivalent to Php20,336,400.00
xxx From all indications, the required portion of defendant's property falls within that portion of Lot 4 (TCT No. T-51596) classified as residential. Plaintiff cannot simply claim that defendant has failed to delineate which portion is residential or industrial for purposes of computing the appropriate zonal value of the subject property. It should have been the plaintiff itself who must have determined first hand what particular portion of defendant's property would be traversed by the expropriation proceedings so as to conform with the deposit requirement of R.A. 8974.
(1) Location Description- the parcels of land could be reached from the National Highway via concrete Barangay Road located across Yakult Philippines Compound. The property was beside Diver Sy Liver Corporation and more or less across Laguna Rubber. At the time of the inspection, the property was undergoing road construction.
(2) Highest and Most Profitable Use- an analysis of the prevailing land usage led the Board to hold that industrial development would represent the highest and best use of the property.
(3) Ocular Inspection- the Board, guided by the parcellary plan, was able to identify the properties which were directly affected by the expropriation proceedings as well as the portion which would not be affected by it.
(4) Valuation/Appraisal- the Board conducted hearings and held several interviews and deliberations on the fair market value. Chairman Hilbero directed the two other commissioners to make and prepare an appraisal report on the subject properties. In his report, Commissioner Oscianas manifested that he personally inspected the property and investigated the local market conditions. He also considered the extent, character and utility of the property, the highest and best use of the property; and the sales and holding prices of similar or comparable land as basis of appraisal using the Market Data Approach. Commissioner Amata, on the other hand, did not submit any appraisal report.
(5) BIR Certificate on Zonal Valuation- using Tax Declaration Nos. E-030-05276 and E-030-05242, the members of the Board were of the consensus that the subject properties were classified as industrial which had a zonal valuation of P2,250.00 per sq.m.
(5) Market Value- the Board considered the narrative report of Commissioner Oscianas to determine the market value of the subject properties.
- extent, character and utility of the property;
- highest and best use of the property; and
- sales and holding prices of similar or comparable lands as basis of appraisal using the Market Data Approach.
- that the property is easily accessible from the national highway;
- that the vicinity had several existing manufacturing plants/ factories and that there are also residential subdivisions in the area; and
- that the prices of the nearby parcels of land and similar in characteristics ranged from P3,000.00 per square meter at the lowest and P8,000.00 per square meter at the highest;
- that the subject property is adjacent to a concrete barangay road; and
- that it is one of the first, if not the first, parcels of land right after the existing South Luzon Expressway (SLEX).
[Underscoring Supplied]
WHEREFORE, with the foregoing premises, this Court renders judgment fixing the amount of Three Thousand Five Hundred (P3,500.00) Pesos per square meter as the just compensation for the properties of defendant corporation herein. Accordingly, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Toll Regulatory Board is ordered to pay the defendant corporation the amount of P32,158,750.00 which represents the difference between the P57,885,750.00 received by the defendant as provisional payment for the 25,727 sq. meter lots owned by defendant corporation and the amount of P90,044,500.00 computed at the rate of P3,500.00 per square meter.
Further, the defendants are hereby ordered to pay Commissioner's fee of Ten Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) each Commissioner.
SO ORDERED.26
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the decision dated December 23, 2009 and order dated July 6, 2010 of Branch 35, RTC of Calamba City in Civil Case No. 3818-05-C are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.30ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
REASON RELIED UPON FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION IN THIS CASE.33
This Court is not a trier of facts. Questions of fact may not be raised in a petition brought under Rule 45, as such petition may only raise questions of law. This rule applies in expropriation cases. Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding on this Court. An evaluation of the case and the issues presented leads the Court to the conclusion that it is unnecessary to deviate from the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts.
Under Section 8 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the trial court sitting as an expropriation court may, after hearing, accept the commissioners' report and render judgment in accordance therewith. This is what the trial court did in this case. The CA affirmed the trial court's pronouncement in toto. Given these facts, the trial court and the CA's identical findings of fact concerning the issue of just compensation should be accorded the greatest respect, and are binding on the Court absent proof that they committed error in establishing the facts and in drawing conclusions from them. There being no showing that the trial court and the CA committed any error, we thus accord due respect to their findings.
The only legal question raised by the petitioner relates to the commissioners' and the trial court's alleged failure to take into consideration, in arriving at the amount of just compensation, Section 5 of RA 8974 enumerating the standards for assessing the value of expropriated land taken for national government infrastructure projects. What escapes petitioner, however, is that the courts are not bound to consider these standards; the exact wording of the said provision is that "in order to facilitate the determination of just compensation, the courts may consider" them. The use of the word "may" in the provision is construed as permissive and operating to confer discretion. In the absence of a finding of abuse, the exercise of such discretion may not be interfered with. For this case, the Court finds no such abuse of discretion.44[Emphasis Supplied]
This Court likewise takes cognizance on the expert opinion of Engr. Oscianas Jr., a highly qualified appraiser relative to the consequential damages suffered by the defendant corporation as a result of the ongoing expropriation proceedings. Based on their ocular inspection and the other documents attached to the records of this case, this Court agrees with the position of the defendant corporation that the remaining areas left to the latter will be practically unutilizable. This conclusion is arrived at because what was left to the defendant after the taking of the properties are two dangling lots with irregular shapes which can no longer be utilized for any business purposes by the defendant corporation. In fact, even if these lots are sold by the defendant corporation, there will be no takers because the remaining lots have become practically useless. Worse, the land owner will be required to pay taxes for the remaining lots as industrial when these lots can no longer be utilized for industrial purposes.xxx46
Section 6. Proceedings by commissioners. — Before entering upon the performance of their duties, the commissioners shall take and subscribe an oath that they will faithfully perform their duties as commissioners, which oath shall be filed in court with the other proceedings in the case. Evidence may be introduced by either party before the commissioners who are authorized to administer oaths on hearings before them, and the commissioners shall, unless the parties consent to the contrary, after due notice to the parties, to attend, view and examine the property sought to be expropriated and its surroundings, and may measure the same, after which either party may, by himself or counsel, argue the case. The commissioners shall assess the consequential damages to the property not taken and deduct from such consequential damages the consequential benefits to be derived by the owner from the public use or purpose of the property taken, the operation of its franchise by the corporation or the carrying on of the business of the corporation or person taking the property. But in no case shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the owner be deprived of the actual value of his property so taken.[Emphasis Supplied]
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 29-40.- Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino and Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.
2 Id. at 51.
3 Id. at 41-48; penned by Judge Romeo C. De Leon.
4 Id. at 49.
5 Id. at 58-64.
6 Authoring the Establishment of Toll Facilities on Public Improvements, Creating a Board for the Regulation Thereof and For Other Purposes.
7 Records, Volume I, p. 11.
8 Id. at 76.
9 Id. at 54-58.
10 Id. at 60.
11 Id. at 108.
12 Id. at 77.
13 Id. at 31-33.
14 Id. at 38-39.
15 Id. at 89-91.
16 Id. at 97-107.
17 Id. at 110-112.
18 Id. at 113-115.
19 Id. at 166-168.
20 Id. at 193-195.
21 Id. at 339-340.
22 Id. at 42.
23 Id. at 58-67.
24 Id. at 65-66.cralawred
25 5. Standards for the Assessment of the Value of the Land Subject of Expropriation Proceedings or Negotiated Sale - in order to facilitate the determination of just compensation, the court may consider, among other well-established factors, the following relevant standards:26Rollo, p. 48.cralawred
- The classification and use for which the property is suited;
- The developmental costs for improving the land;
- The value declared by the owners;
- The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity;
- The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or demolition of certain improvements on land and for the value of improvements thereon;
- The size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of the land;
- The price of the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as well as documentary evidence submitted;
- 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.
27 Id. at 34.
28 Id. at 35.
29 Id. at 37.
30 Id. at 39.
31 Id. at 51.
32 Id. at 50.
33 Id. at 15.
34 Id. at 3-41,
35 Id. at 77-85.
36 Id. at 81.
37 Id. at 89-91.
38Republic v. Asia Pacific Integrated Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 192100, March 12, 2014, 719 SCRA 50.
39 Id. at 63.cralawred
40National Power Corporation v. Tuazon, 668 Phil. 301 (2011).
41 Id. at 312.
42National Power Corporation v. Spouses Zabala, G.R. No. 173520, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 554, 555-556.
43 G.R. No. 181218, January 28, 2013, 689 SCRA 349.
44 Id. at 362-363.
45Republic v. Spouses Tan, 676 Phil. 337, 354 (2011), citing National Power Corporation, 586 Phil. 587, 604 (2008).
46Rollo, p. 48.
47Republic v. Soriano, G.R. No. 211666, February 25, 2015, citing Republic of the Philippines v. Bank of the Philippines Islands, G.R. No. 203039, September 11, 2013, 705 SCRA 650, 665.
48 G.R. No. 203039, September 11,2013,705 SCRA 650.
49Flores v. Spouses Undo, 664 Phil. 210, 221 (2011), citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 612 Phil. 965, 982 (2009).