THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 245988. June 16, 2021
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF SPOUSES LUIS J. DELA CRUZ AND IMELDA REYES, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 of the Decision2 dated June 28, 2018 and the Resolution3 dated March 5, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 103874. The CA affirmed
with modification only as to the payment of legal interest the
Decision4 dated
September 18, 2014 of Branch 172, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Valenzuela City in Civil Case No.
248-V-07.
Petitioner alleged in the complaint the purpose of the expropriation, to wit:
TCT No. Area (sq.m.) Area Affected (sq.m.) Zonal Value Per sq.m. Total Zonal ValueV-70921
(now V-94768) 92 23 P2,750.00 P63,250.00V-68375
(now V-97473) 137 68 P2,750.00 P187,000.00V-68373
(now V-947772) 58 9 P2,750.00 P24,750.007
Pursuant to Sec. 7 of E.O. 1035, the DPWH is implementing the construction of C-5 Northern Link Road Project, Segment 8.1 from Mindanao Avenue in Quezon City to the Northern Luzon Expressway, Valenzuela City, to provide faster and comfortable travel to the motoring public going to, or coming from. Northern Luzon, thru Metro Manila.8chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryPetitioner manifested its willingness to pay the amount of P495,200.07 as just compensation for the affected areas based on the zonal value of the subject lots at P2,750.00 per square meter, as certified by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).9chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Since we are no longer conducted [sic] an ocular inspection, we have considered the physical, functional and external value influences of the neighborhood, and have noted and considered an approach of value and analysis, taking into accounts [sic] the public use and the value of allowable damages or enhancements to any remaining property for determination of just compensation, if any. Also, taking into account other properties previously subject of expropriation within the immediate vicinity, which can be used as a precedent for this particular case.20chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryThe BOC further explained that in determining just compensation, it took into consideration the "sales comparison and cost approach" which is founded on the principle of substitution where the value of a property is indicative of the value of other similar properties.21 The BOC then based its appraisal on the following factors: (a) the highest and best use of the property in relation to the prevailing usage of the neighborhood and immediate use at the time of taking, i.e., mixed residential and industrial; (b) the BIR zonal valuation, i.e., P2,750.00 per square meter; (c) consequential benefits which the owner may derive from the remainder of the expropriated property; and (d) the analysis made in the Hobart case under Civil Case No. 15-V-08-an expropriation case involving properties within the same vicinity which was previously settled with finality and which was determined as the one most similar to the instant case because they involve properties near each other.22chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered condemning the following lots of the defendants:Aggrieved, petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the RTC Decision to the CA.27chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryall located at Barangay Ugong, Valenzuela City, free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever, for the construction of C-5 Northern Link Road Project Segment 8.1 from Mindanao Avenue in Quezon City to the North Luzon Expressway, Valenzuela City, a public purpose, in favor of the plaintiff, Republic of the Philippines, upon payment of just compensation which is fixed at Php9,000.00/square meter or in the total amount of Php9,000.00 (sic) (NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS) (100 sq. m. x Php9,000.00) deducting the provisional deposit of P275,000.00 previously made and subject to the payment of all unpaid taxes and other relevant taxes by the defendants up to the filing of the complaint, if there be any.
TCT NO. AREA AFFECTED (SQ.M.) V-70921 (now V-94768) 23 V-68375 (now V-97473) (undecipherable) V-68373 (now V-947772) 9
The plaintiff is ordered to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the unpaid balance of just compensation of Php625,000.00 (SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND) (Php900,000.00-Php275,000.00) computed from the time of the filing of the complaint until plaintiff fully pays the balance.
No additional amount for the improvement of lot covered by TCT No. 68373 is awarded as the court considers the amount of Php220,200.07 already paid by plaintiff to the defendants as enough just compensation for the improvement.
Let a certified true copy of this decision be forwarded to the Office of the Register of Deeds of Valenzuela City for the latter to annotate this decision in the Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. V-70921 (now V-94768); V-68375 (now V-97473); and V-68373 (now V-947772) of the Registry of Deeds of Valenzuela City.
SO ORDERED.26chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of plaintiff-appellant Republic of the Philippines is DENIED.Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,39 but the CA denied it in its Resolution dated March 5, 2019.40 The CA ruled: (1) that the conduct of an ocular inspection is not mandatory before the BOC can make a recommendation as it is merely a factor to guide the commissioners in arriving at a just value for the expropriated property; (2) that the OSG is correct in stating that the BOC should not use the valuation awarded in previous expropriation cases considering the valuation awarded in previous expropnat1on cases considering the differences in the nature and condition of the properties involved; thus the RTC, for that reason, precisely reduced the BOC's recommended value, being well aware that there are other factors which affect the proper valuation of the expropriated properties other than the value of similarly situated properties; (3) that the alleged presence of informal settlers near or within the vicinity of the subject properties could not have reduced the RTC's determination of just compensation, i.e., P9,000.00 because of the fact that the area was also devoted to commercial and industrial uses; and (4) that zonal value cannot be the sole basis in determining just compensation, but the RTC nevertheless considered zonal value as one of the factors in determining the fair and full equivalent of the subject properties.41chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The Decision dated September 18, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 172, National Capital Judicial Region in Civil Case No. 248-V-07 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION on the payment of interest.
Plaintiff-Appellant Republic of the Philippines is ordered to pay interest at the rate of: (1) twelve per centum (12%) per annum on the unpaid balance of Six Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P625,000.00) from the date of filing of the instant complaint until June 30, 2013; and (2) six per centum (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment of said unpaid balance.
SO ORDERED.38chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
No modification of judgment can be granted
to respondents who did not appeal the RTC Decision as affirmed by the
CA. |
The entrenched procedural rule in this jurisdiction is that a party who did not appeal cannot assign such errors as are designed to have the judgment modified. All that said appellee can do is to make a counter-assignment of errors or to argue on issues raised at the trial only for the purpose of sustaining the judgment in his favor, even on grounds not included in the decision of the court a quo or raised in the appellant's assignment of errors or arguments.Admittedly, the rule is subject to exceptions. However, the established exceptions to this rule such as "(1) errors affecting the lower court's jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) plain errors not specified, and (3) clerical errors" are not present in the case.55chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
This tenet is enshrined as one of the basic principles in our rules of procedure, specifically to avoid ambiguity in the presentation of issues, facilitate the setting forth of arguments by the parties, and aid the court in making its determinations. A party who fails to acquire complete relief from a decision of the court has various remedies to correct an omission by the court. He may move for a correction or clarification of judgment, or even seek its modification through ordinary appeal. There is thus no basis for the Court to skip the rule and excuse herein respondents for failure to properly avail themselves of the remedies in the face of the parties' contentions that have remained disputed.54 (Italics supplied.)
The Court affirms
the award of just compensation for the taking of the subject properties
valued at P9,000.00 per square
meter. |
Constitutionally, "just compensation" is the sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described as the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition, or the fair value of the property as between the one who receives and the one who desires to sell, it being fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the propriator. It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court that the true measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to modify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be given for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.62 (Emphasis omitted.)Section 5 of RA 8974 provides for the standards that may be considered by the courts in determining just compensation, viz.:
SECTION 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:It must be emphasized however that the determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. As such, legislative enactments, as well as executive issuances, which fix or provide for the method of computing just compensation are tantamount to impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives.63 Hence, any valuation for just compensation provided in statutes may serve only as a guiding principle but may not supplant the court's own determination as to the amount that should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount.64chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) The classification and use for which the property is suited; (b) The developmental costs for improving the land; (c) The value declared by the owners; (d) The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity; (e) The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or demolition of certain improvement on the land and for the value of improvements thereon; (f) This size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of the land; (g) The price of the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as well as documentary evidence presented; and (h) 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.
There is no dispute that the subject lots were classified as residential by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). The lots are located at Barangay Ugong, Valenzuela City. All the lots are irregular in shape. They are however, located in high intensity commercial zone. The place where the lots are located has amenities like water, electricity, transportation and communication. Per BIR zonal valuation, the lots have a zonal valuation of Php2,750.00 per square meter.Evidently, in pegging the just compensation that should be awarded to respondents at P9,000.00 per square meter, the RTC considered the following factors: (a) the BIR zonal valuation; (b) the value declared by Spouses Dela Cruz, as owners, in their Answer before the trial court; (c) the recommended value of the BOC which was ultimately based on the value of the Hobart property, a land in the same general vicinity also expropriated for the similar purpose;69 and (d) evidence describing the location, shape, and classification of the subject properties. Specifically, the RTC noted that the subject properties were irregular in shape and were classified as residential, but were located in a high-intensity commercial zone.70chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The subject property is 442.14 meters more or less away from the property (residential) of Hobart Realty Development Corporation, which was expropriated by the plaintiff and in which the just compensation was pegged by this court in the amount of Php15.000.00/sq.m. The Hobart property is located near Mindanao Avenue, Quezon City. The expropriation case involving Hobart Realty Development Corporation had long become final and executory. The property subject of expropriation is considered within high intensity commercial zone as it is located near the industrial and commercial zone in Valenzuela City were several business establishments and warehouses had increased considerably by virtue of its proximity to C-5 Road, North Luzon Expressway and Mindanao Ave., Quezon City.
Plaintiff tried to lower the value of the subject property by claiming that the subject property is near or within the vicinity of the areas with colonies of informal settlers, which were relocated. Plaintiff, however, failed to prove that the properties of the defendants were occupied by squatters or near the vicinity occupied by the alleged squatters.
x x x x
Taking the average [of] the BIR zonal valuation recommended as appearing in the complaint of P2,750.00 per square meter, the value declared by the defendants in their answer in the amount between Php8,000.00-Php10,000.00 per square meter, the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners and this court's observations on the location, the shape, the classification of the lots, the Court rules that the just compensation for the defendants' lots sought to be taken in this case is fixed at Php9,000.00 per square meter.
The construction of C-5 Northern Link Road Project, Segment 8.1 from Mindanao Avenue in Quezon City to the North Luzon Expressway, Valenzuela City could not be said to have benefited the defendants for it is common knowledge that expressways are being fenced, so that inhabitants could not just cross over the highway to go to the other side or to utilize the said highway as pedestrian, as the highway was made precisely for the motoring public who has to pass through the toll gates. In short, defendants were actually isolated because of the fence made on the sides of the highways.68 (citations omitted)
The award of legal
interest on just compensation must be modified such that legal interest
must accrue from the time the Government took possession of the
property. |
Section 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. (Italics supplied.)In Evergreen, the Court explained that just compensation should be made at the time of taking; and the rationale for imposing interest on just compensation is to compensate the property owners for the income that they would have made if they had been properly compensated, i.e., they had been paid the full amount of just compensation, at the time of taking when they were deprived of their property.77chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 11-29.
2 Id. at 34-53; penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring.
3 Id. at 55-57.
4 Records, pp. 515-520; penned by Judge Nancy Rivas-Palmones.
5 Id. at 1-8.
6 Rollo, p. 35.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 35-36.
10 Records, pp. 37-43.
11 Id. at 38.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 40.
14 Rollo, pp. 36-37.
15 Id. at 38.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 See Commissioners' Report dated February 21, 2014 of Branch 172, Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela City signed by the Board of Commissioners, records, p. 495.
20 Id. at 496.
21 Id. at 497-498.
22 Id.
23 Id. at 502-504, 507-512.
24 Id. at 515-520.
25 Id. at 519-520.
26 Id.
27 Rollo, p. 42.
28 Id. at 34-53.
29 Id. at 52-53.
30 Entitled. "An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-Of-Way, Site or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and For Other Purposes," approved on November 7, 2000.
31 Rollo, pp. 43-44, citing Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Gingoyon, 514 Phil. 657 (2005).
32 Id. at 46.
33 Id. at 48.
34 Id. at 46-47, 49-50.
35 817 Phil. 1048 (2017).
36 Rollo, pp. 50-51.
37 Id. at 51-52.
38 Id. at 52-53.
39 Id. at 58-72.
40 Id. at 55-57.
41 Id. at 56-57.
42 Id. at 17-18.
43 Id. at 21, 23-24.
44 Id. at 18-20.
45 Id. at 20.
46 Id. at 137-152.
47 Id. at 161.
48 Id. at 159.
49 Id. at 171.
50 Id. at 152.
51 Id. at 181.
52 Yano v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 186640, February 11, 2020, citing Loy, Jr., et al. v. San Miguel Corp. Employees Union-Phil. Transport and General Workers Organization (SMCEU-PTGWO), et al., 620 Phil. 220, 238 (2009).
53 G.R. No. 186640, February 11, 2020.
54 Id., Citations omitted.
55 Teodoro, et al. v. Continental Cement Corporation, 695 Phil. 803, 819 (2012), citing Real v. Belo, 542 Phil. 109, 123-124 (2017) and Santos v. Court of Appeals, 293 Phil. 45, 49 (1993).
56 Evergreen Manufacturing Corp. v. Rep. of the Phils., supra note 35 at 1057.
57 Rep. of the Phils. v. Heirs of Eladio Santiago, et al., 808 Phil. 1, 9 (2017).
58 Evergreen Manufacturing Corp. v. Rep. of the Phils., supra note 35 at 1057.
59 Rep. of the Phils. v. Heirs of Eladio Santiago, et al., supra note 57.
60 In DBP v. Traders Royal Bank, et al., 642 Phil. 547, 556 (2010), as quoted in Evergreen Manufacturing Corp. v. Rep. of the Phils., supra note 35 at 1058, the Court enumerated the following exceptions to the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion: (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are nor disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. See also Republic v. Barcelon, G.R. No. 2260 1, July 24, 2019.
61 See Rep. of the Phils. v. Asia Pacific Integrated Steel Corp., 729 Phil. 402 (2014); Rep. of the Phils. v. C. C. Unson Company, Inc., 781 Phil. 770 (2016).
62 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Orilla, 578 Phil. 663 (2008) as quoted in Apo Fruits Corp., et al. v. Land Bank of The Phil., 647 Phil. 251 (2010).
63 Rep. of the Phils. v. Cebuan, et al., 810 Phil. 767 (2017).
64 Rep. of the Phils. v. Heirs of Eladio Santiago, et al., supra note 57 at 11, citing National Power Corporation v. Tuazon, et al., 668 Phil. 301, 313 (2011); National Power Corp. v. Bagui, et al., 590 Phil. 424, 432 (2008).
65 Rollo, p. 47, citing Rep. of the Phils. v. Cebuan, et al., supra note 63.
66 702 Phil. 284 (2013).
67 Id. at 298, citing Office of the Ombudsman v. De Sahagun, et al., 584 Phil. 119, 127 (2008).
68 Records, pp. 518-519.
69 In Rep. of the Phils. v. Ng, 821 Phil. 1070 (2017), the Court explained by way of a footnote that in the case of Republic v. Hobart Realty and Development Corporation which involved a residential property, the Court upheld the just compensation of P15,000.00/square meter via a Minute Resolution dated July 9, 2012 in G.R. No. 201136 which attained finality on January 7, 2013.
70 Records, pp. 518-519.
71 Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974 provides:
SECTION 4. Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings. - Whenever it is necessary to acquire real property for the right-of-way or location for any national government infrastructure project through expropriation, the appropriate implementing agency shall initiate the expropriation proceedings before the proper court under the following guidelines:
(a) Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property the amount equivalent to the sum of (1) one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR); and (2) the value of the improvements and/or structures as determined under Section 7 hereof;
(b) In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no zonal valuation, the BIR is hereby mandated within the period of sixty (60) days from the date of the expropriation case, to come up with a zonal valuation for said area; and
(c) In case the completion of a government infrastructure project is of utmost urgency and importance, and there is no existing valuation of the area concerned, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property its proffered value taking into consideration the standards prescribed in Section 5 hereof.
Upon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project.
Before the court can issue a Writ of Possession, the implementing agency shall present to the court a certificate of availability of funds from the proper official concerned.
In the event that the owner of the property contests the implementing agency's proffered value, the court shall determine the just compensation to be paid the owner within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation case. When the decision of the court becomes final and executory, the implementing agency shall pay the owner the difference between the amount already paid and the just compensation as determined by the court. (italics supplied.)
72 Rollo, p. 19.
73 National Grid Corporation of the Philippines v. Bautista, G.R. No. 232120, September 30, 2020, citing Leca Realty Corp. v. Rep. of the Phils., 534 Phil. 693, 696 (2006).
74 Id.
75 Rollo, p. 52.
76 National Power Corporation v. Posada, et al., 755 Phil. 613 (2015).
77 Evergreen Manufacturing Corp. v. Rep. of the Phils., supra note 35 at 1068.
78 Id. at 1070-1071.
79 Republic of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals, 433 Phil. 106 (2002) as cited in Apo Fruits Corp., et al. v. Land Bank of the Phil., 647 Phil. 251 (2010).
80 304 Phil. 236 (1994).
81 716 Phil. 267 (2013).
82 See also Rep. of the Phils. v. Ng, supra note 69.
83 See Rep. of the Phils. v. Macabagdal, 823 Phil. 477 (2018), citing Rep. of the Phil., et al. v. Mupas, et al., 769 Phil. 21, 199-200, 223 (2015).cralawredlibrary