REPUBLIC v. CEBUAN

REPUBLIC v. ROLANDO C. CEBUAN
GR No. 206702
June 07, 2017

Facts:

For its Lower Agusan Development Project – Irrigation Component at Barangays Basag, Ampayon and Kinamlutan, all situated in Butuan City, the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) identified several parcels of land as suitable locations for the construction of irrigation canals. Portions of the parcels of land identified were those located in (1) Barangay Basag owned by respondents Rolando Cebuan (652 sq.m.); Ruben Cebuan (503 sq. m.); Eric Cebuan (1,244 sq. m. and 1,754 sq. m.); and Samuel Baring (776 sq. m. and 836 sq. m.); (2) Barangay Ampayon owned by respondent Beatrice Low (2,412 sq. m. and 1,550 sq. m.); and, (3) Barangay Kinamlutan owned by respondents Leonore Dela Serna (1,440 sq. m.) and the Heirs of Lorenzo Umbaad (590 sq. m.)

NIA initiated expropriation proceedings after the failure of the negotiated sale. In its Complaint NIA based the values of the properties on BIR Zonal Valuations as specified in Department Order No. 16-2000 and arrived at an aggregate amount of PhP60,094.50 for the entire 11,737 sq. m. sought to be expropriated. In their Answer, respondents Cebuans, Baring and the heirs of Umbaad expressed their agreement to the expropriation provided that the properties be valued at least PhP300 per square meter. Likewise, respondents Dela Serna and Low agreed to the expropriation but valued at PhP300 per square meter.

Nevertheless, in the years 2002 and 2003, the Cebuans and Baring executed in favor of NIA a Permit to Enter and corresponding payments for damages caused to the rice plants, other various plants and trees thereon were made. Likewise, the heirs of Umbaad received in 2004 payment for damages caused on their property. On the other hand, Beatrice Low and Leonore dela Serna did not receive any payment as they allegedly had no improvements on their respective properties.

Thereafter, NIA moved for the issuance of a writ of possession and upon deposit of the amount equivalent to 100% of the value of the properties involved based on the current BIR zonal value and submission of the certificate of availability of funds, the RTC granted the same and a Writ of Possession dated April 21, 2004 was issued.
Only the Cebuans, Baring and the heirs of Umbaad moved for the deferment of the implementation of the Writ of Possession on the ground that they had not been fully paid of the improvements on their properties as they were allegedly deprived of the use of the same since 1999 but had been paid for two croppings only.
Subsequently, as proposed by NIA, and as agreed upon by the parties, a Board of Commissioners was created by the RTC to determine the fair market value of the properties sought to be expropriated.

On May 16, 2006, the Commissioners submitted their Report assigning the fair market value of the properties of the Cebuans, Baring and the heirs of Umbaad at PhP45 per square meter and the property of Leonore dela Serna at PhP120 per square meter, while the consequential damages were assessed at 5% of the fair market value of the remaining portion of the properties and the consequential benefits were assessed at 3% thereof.
NIA filed its Comment on the Report, arguing that the fair market value as fixed by the Commissioners was grossly excessive. Instead, NIA contended that the value of the properties should only be PhP0.90 per square meter which was the price of the properties when the same were bought by the respondents from the government.
On December 18, 2006, the RTC rendered its Partial Judgment adopting the Commissioners' Report and disregarding NIA's contention.

Upon Motion for Clarificatory Judgment filed by the heirs of Umbaad, the RTC rendered its Clarificatory and Final Judgment.
From the foregoing pronouncements NIA interposed its appeal to the CA. The CA partially granted NIA's appeal. The case is thus REMANDED to the court a quo for further proceedings for the final determination of just compensation. The court a quo is DIRECTED to resolve this issue with reasonable dispatch.
NIA's motion for reconsideration was similarly rebuffed by the CA. Hence, resorted to the present petition.


Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC's ruling on just compensation; and 2.) whether there is justification for the CA's remand of the case to the RTC.


Held:

In expropriation proceedings, just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word compensation and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.

The constitutional limitation of just compensation is considered to be a sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly defined 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 one who receives and one who desires to sell it, fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government.

Further, the determination of just compensation in expropriation cases is a function addressed to the discretion of the courts owing to the constitutional mandate that no private property shall be taken for public use without payment of just compensation. That being said, legislative enactments, as well as executive issuances, fixing or providing for the method of computing just compensation are tantamount to impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives. As such, they are not binding on courts and are treated as mere guidelines in ascertaining the amount of just compensation. Even the enumeration of the standards for the assessment of the value of the land for purposes of expropriation under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8974 reflects the non-exclusive, permissive and discretionary character thereof. The insistence then of NIA to fix the amount of just compensation based on the zonal valuation of the land and on the tax declaration is utterly misplaced as these factors are only two of the several which the court may consider to facilitate the determination of just compensation.

Be that as it may, unmoving still is the rule that the "just"-ness of the compensation can only be attained by using reliable and actual data. Accordingly, trial courts are reminded, time and again, to be circumspect in its evaluation of just compensation due the property owner, considering that eminent domain cases involve the expenditure of public funds.

Here, in valuing the land for purposes of fixing just compensation, the RTC took into consideration the Commissioners' Report. The Commissioners, in turn, utilized the Market Data Approach wherein the sales, listings or appraisals–adjusted as to the time of sale, location and general characteristics of comparable lots in the area, where the subject properties were located–were used. Information was gathered from the appraisals of existing banking institutions, as well as on site inspections. The fair market value of the properties were, thus, determined based on reliable and actual data.
As such, the Court sees no error when the trial court accepted the Commissioner's Report and rendered judgment in accordance therewith as the same is sanctioned under Section 8, Rule 67.

Further militating against the NIA's position is the fact that the RTC's assessment of the value of the land was affirmed by the appellate court on review. Accordingly, the trial court and the CA's identical findings concerning the assessment of the value of the properties 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 therefrom. There being no showing that the trial court and the CA committed any error. Thus, accord due respect to their findings. Besides, the Court is not a trier of facts and the rule that petitions brought under Rule 45 may only raise questions of law equally applies to expropriation cases.