REPUBLIC v. SPS LLAMAS

Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Vs. Sps. Francisco R. Llamas and Carmelita C. Llamas

G.R. No. 194190

January 25, 2017

FACTS:

On April 23, 1990, the Department of Public Works and Highways initiated an action for expropriation for the widening of Dr. A. Santos Ave, which also known as Sucat Road. This action was brought against 26 defendants, none of whom are respondents in this case.

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.

Llamas spouses filed "Most Urgent and Respectful Motion for Leave to be Allowed Intervention as Defendants-Intervenors-Oppositors" on January 27, 1994. They also filed their Answer-in-Intervention on March 21, 1994. After which, on August 2, 1994, they filed a "Most Urgent Motion for the Issuance of an Order Directing the Immediate Payment of 40% of Zonal Value of Expropriated Land and Improvements."

After years of not obtaining a favorable ruling, the Llamas Spouses filed a "Motion for Issuance of an Order to Pay and/or Writ of Execution dated May 14, 2002. In this Motion, the Llamas Spouses faulted the Department of Public Works and Highways for what was supposedly its deliberate failure to comply with the Regional Trial Court's previous Orders and even with its own undertaking to facilitate the payment of just compensation to the Llamas Spouses.

Department of Public Works and Highways and the Llamas Spouses had an understanding that the resolution of the latter's claims required the submission of: (1) certified true copies of the TCTs covering the lots; and (2) certified true copies of the tax declarations, tax clearances, and tax receipts over the lots.  But, due to their continued failure to comply with their undertaking, the Department of Public Works and Highways did not pay them.

On October 8, 2007, the Regional Trial Court issued the Order directing the payment to the Llamas Spouses of just compensation at P12,000.00 per square meter for 41 square meters for the lot covered by TCT No. 217267. It denied payment for areas covered by TCT No. 179165 and noted that these were subdivision road lots, which the Llamas Spouses "no longer owned" and which "belonged to the community for whom they were made." In the Order dated May 19, 2008, the Regional Trial Court denied the Llamas Spouses' Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE:

Whether just compensation must be paid to respondents Francisco and Carmelita Llamas for the subdivision road lots covered by TCT No. 179165.    

HELD:

The Department of Public Works and Highways insists that the road lots are not compensable since they have "already been withdrawn from the commerce of man." It relies chiefly on this Court's 1991 Decision in White Plains Association, Inc. v. Legaspi, which pertained to "the widening of the Katipunan Road in the White Plains Subdivision in Quezon City.”More specifically, in the 1991 White Plains Decision that shows a compulsion for subdivision owners to set aside open spaces for public use, such as roads, and for which they need not be compensated by 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.

On the other hand, in its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals set aside the Regional Trial Court's 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.

The Court of Appeals correctly stated that a "positive act" must first be made by the "owner-developer before the city or municipality can acquire dominion over the subdivision roads." As there is no such thing as an automatic cession to government of subdivision road lots, an actual transfer must first be effected by the subdivision owner: "subdivision streets belonged to the owner until donated to the government or until expropriated upon payment of just compensation." Stated otherwise, "the local government should first acquire them by donation, purchase, or expropriation, if they are to be utilized as a public road."

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.

Respondents have not made any positive act enabling the City Government of Parañaque to acquire dominion over the disputed road lots. Therefore, they retain their private character. Accordingly, just compensation must be paid to respondents as the government takes the road lots in the course of a road widening project.