THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 227614, January 11, 2021
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Petitioner, v. ROPA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND/OR ROBINSON YAO, AND/OR JOVITO YAO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
In expropriation cases, the appointment of commissioners for the determination of just compensation for the property sought to be taken is a mandatory requirement.
This Court resolves a Petition for Review seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals' Decision1 and Resolution2 dismissing the Republic of the Philippines' (Republic) appeal from the Bacolod City Regional Trial Court's Decision. The Regional Trial Court ordered the Republic to pay Ropa Development (Ropa Development), and/or Robinson Yao (Robinson), and/or Jovito Yao (Jovito) just compensation.
Ropa Development, Robinson, and Jovito were owners of two parcels of a 20,000-square meter land in Mansilingan, Bacolod City.3
The Republic, represented by the Department of Energy, filed a Complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, seeking to expropriate a total of 32 square meters from the properties in Mansilingan. The land was to be used for the construction of two transmission towers for the Northern Negros Geothermal Project.4
The Republic also sought to acquire an easement of right of way consisting of 288 square meters from the same properties to be used as temporary working sites during the construction of the towers. It prayed for the immediate issuance of a writ of possession.5
However, Ropa Development, Robinson, and Jovito opposed this. In their Answer, they admitted to most of the allegations in the Complaint, but alleged that it "failed to show that a number of fruit bearing trees were planted on the property."6 Thus, considering the nature and effects of the construction of transmission towers, they claim that they should be paid not only for the portion actually expropriated, but for the entire property as well. Moreover, they said that the towers' power lines will "substantially limit [their] use of the land."7
The Regional Trial Court issued a writ of possession in favor of the Republic. Ropa Development, Robinson, and Jovito questioned this before the Court of Appeals through a Petition for Certiorari.8
While the Petition for Certiorari was still pending, Ropa Development, Robinson, and Jovito filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Summary Judgment before the Regional Trial Court. They raised the issues, among others, of: (1) whether or not the amount deposited by the government was sufficient compensation; and (2) whether or not the government was allowed to simply pay an "easement fee" of 10% of the zonal valuation for the area used for temporary working sites.9 This motion was held in abeyance pending the resolution of the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals.10
Eventually, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on the Petition for Certiorari, enjoining the enforcement and implementation of the writ of possession. This Court affirmed the ruling.11
The Regional Trial Court, in its Decision granting the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,12 held that Ropa Development, Robinson, and Jovito were entitled to just compensation for the 32-square meter area actually expropriated, as well as for the 288-square meter area which would be temporarily used for the construction of the towers. It also ordered the Republic to pay severance or consequential damages representing the value reduction of the rest of the 39,680 square meters of the two properties, considering the adverse effects of the presence of posts and high tension transmission lines.13 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of defendants, namely, ROPA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and/or ROBINSON YAO and/or JOVITO YAO, as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThe Republic lodged an appeal, claiming that no commissioners were appointed during the trial in violation of the Rules of Court. It also questioned the judgment on the pleadings, arguing that it was improper as there were unresolved factual issues. The Republic also assailed the order to pay for compensation for the mere temporary use of the 288-square meter area during the construction and installation of the towers. Finally, it said that there was no basis for the order to pay severance or consequential damages.15SO ORDERED.14chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
- Ordering plaintiff to pay defendants afore-named the sum of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (P384,000.00) representing the just compensation for the properties of defendants consisting of the total area of (32) square meters, more or less, computed at P1,200.00 per square meter which will be used for the construction and maintenance of Tower Nos. 112 and 113 and two hundred eighty eight (288) square meters, more or less, from both properties will be needed as temporary working areas during the construction and installation of two (2) transmission towers on the properties of the defendants, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-218571 and T-218573 situated in Barangay Mansilingan, Bacolod city, as contained in the Resolution of the Court of Appeals promulgated on February 21, 2008 and was affirmed with finality by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on June 11, 2010;
- Ordering plaintiff to pay defendants the sum of FOUR MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P4,761,600.00) as severance/consequential damages representing ten percent (10%) of the price difference or reduction of value of the fair market value of 39,680 square meters of the properties which were adversely affected by the presence of the plaintiffs posts and high tension transmission lines; and
- Ordering plaintiff to pay the defendants the sum of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos, as attorney's fees.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated May 5, 2011 of Branch 49 of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City in Civil Case No. 05-12654 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award of attorney's fees is DELETED.The Republic moved for reconsideration, but its motion was likewise denied by the Court of Appeals.20 Hence, this petition was filed before this Court.
SO ORDERED.19chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 14. Trial Proceedings. - Within the sixty (60)-day period prescribed by the Act, all matters regarding defenses and objections to the complaint, issues on uncertain ownership and conflicting claims, effects of appeal on the rights of the parties, and such other incidents affecting the complaint shall be resolved under the provisions on expropriation of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.Thus, it appears that Rule 67 governs the trial proceedings of expropriation cases initiated under Republic Act No. 8974. However, respondents claim that the law does not specifically require the procedure of appointing commissioners, as found in Section 5 of Rule 67. They also cite this Court's pronouncements in Republic v. Gingoyon,41 which states that "the appointment of commissioners under Rule 67 may be resorted to, even in expropriation proceedings under [Republic] Act No. 8974, since the application of the provisions of Rule 67 in that regard do not conflict with the statute."42 To respondents, the use of the word "may" means that the appointment of commissioners was only optional and not mandatory.
The most crucial difference between Rule 67 and Rep. Act No. 8974 concerns the particular essential step the Government has to undertake to be entitled to a writ of possession.The clarification in Gingoyon was necessary in view of the earlier but related case of Agan v. PIATCO46 resolved by this Court (Agan Resolution). In the Agan Resolution, this Court stated that the government had to compensate PIATCO as builder of the structures comprising the NAIA IPT III facility, and that this "compensation must be just and in accordance with law and equity for the government [cannot] unjustly enrich itself at the expense of PIATCO and its investors."47
....
... Rule 67 merely requires the Government to deposit with an authorized government depositary the assessed value of the property for expropriation for it to be entitled to a writ of possession. On the other hand, Rep. Act No. 8974 requires that the Government make a direct payment to the property owner before the writ may issue. Moreover, such payment is based on the zonal valuation of the BIR in the case of land, the value of the improvements or structures under the replacement cost method, or if no such valuation is available and in cases of utmost urgency, the proffered value of the property to be seized.
....
It is the plain intent of Rep. Act No. 8974 to supersede the system of deposit under Rule 67 with the scheme of "immediate payment" in cases involving national government infrastructure projects....45chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 5. Ascertainment of compensation. - Upon 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. The order of appointment shall designate the time and place of the first session of the hearing to be held by the commissioners and specify the time within which their report shall be submitted to the court.This Court has consistently characterized this procedure as mandatory. In Manila Electric Company v. Pineda:51chanrobleslawlibrary
In an expropriation case such as this one where the principal issue is the determination of just compensation, a trial before the Commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to present evidence on the issue of just compensation. Contrary to the submission of private respondents, the appointment of at least three (3) competent persons as commissioners to ascertain just compensation for the property sought to be taken is a mandatory requirement in expropriation cases.52chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryThe need to conduct proceedings before appointed commissioners becomes more apparent, given the necessity to compute for consequential damages. As pointed out by petitioner, the Regional Trial Court's award of consequential damages of P4,761,600.00 is baseless without the presentation of evidence before the court-appointed commissioners.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 29-39. The November 19, 2015 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Jhosep Y. Lopez of the Special Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
2 Id. at 40-42. The August 30, 2016 Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Gabriel T. Robeniol of the Special Former Special Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
3 Id. at 29.
4 Id. at 30.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 31.
9 Id. at 59.
10 Id. at 31.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 103. The Regional Trial Court rendered a judgment on the pleadings after finding that there was no controverted issue between the parties.
13 Id. at 31-32.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 32-33.
16 514 Phil. 657 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc].
17 Id. at 709.
18Rollo, p. 33.
19 Id. at 38.
20 Id. at 41.
21 Id. at 12.
22 Id. at 13.
23 Id. at 14-15.
24 Id. at 15.
25 Id. at 17.
26 Id. at 18. Citing Section 14 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 8974.
27 598 Phil. 58 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
28Rollo, p. 19.
29 Id. at 19-20.
30 Id. at 20.
31 Id. at 21.
32 Id. at 231.
33 Id. at 232-233.
34 Id. at 137.
35 Id. at 242.
36 Id. at 242-243.
37 Id. at 244.
38 Id.
39 Id. at 245.
40 SECTION 2. Entry of Plaintiff Upon Depositing Value With Authorized Government Depositary. - Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter and after due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation to be held by such bank subject to the orders of the court. Such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a government bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on demand to the authorized government depositary.
If personal property is involved, its value shall be provisionally ascertained and the amount to be deposited shall be promptly fixed by the court.
After such deposit is made the court shall order the sheriff or other proper officer to forthwith place the plaintiff in possession of the property involved and promptly submit a report thereof to the court with service of copies to the parties.
41 514 Phil. 657 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc].
42 Id. at 709.
43 Id. at 681-682.
44 Id.
45 Id. at 686-689.
46 465 Phil. 545 (2004) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
47 Id. at 582.
48Republic v. Gingoyon, 514 Phil. 657, 688 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc].
49 Id. at 690.
50 RULES OF COURT, Rule 67, sec. 6, provides:
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.
51 283 Phil. 90 (1992) [Per J. Medialdea, First Division].
52 Id. at 100. See also Forfom Development Corporation v. Philippine National Railways, 594 Phil. 10 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]; and Republic v. Spouses Silvestre, G.R. No. 237324, February 6, 2019, [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
53Rollo, p. 35.
54 Id. at 34.
55Heirs of Pidacan v. Air Transportation Office, 552 Phil. 48, 55 (2007) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
56Republic v. Castellvi, 157 Phil. 329 (1974) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc].cralawredlibrary