8/10/2019 11 Benguet Consolidated v. Republic

1/2

Special Civil Actions

G.R. No. 71412Date: 06/20/2000

11 Benguet Consolidated v. RepublicPetitioner: Benguet Consolidated, In !no" Benguet Cor#oration$Res#ondents: Re#u%li o& t'e P'ili##inesPonente: Gutierre(, )r., J .

Facts: *'e Re#u%li o& t'e P'ili##ines &iled "it' t'e t'en C+I o& Benguet and Baguio a o #laint &or e-#ro#riation against 10 de&endants, a ongt'e Benguet Consolidated, In . *'e Re#u%li stated t'at it needed t'e #ro#ert &or t'e #ur#ose o& esta%lis'ing and aintaining a #er anentsite &or t'e P'ili##ine ilitar ade , a training institution &or o&&i ers in t'e +P, under t'e dire t aut'orit and su#er ision o& t'eDe#art ent o& National De&ense. It also a erred t'at it 'ad o u#ied t'e area o ered % t'e ining lai s o& t'e de&endants and 'ad alreadinstalled t'erein #er anent %uildings and ot'er alua%le i #ro e ents "it' no less t'an P ,000,000.00 in t'e %elie& t'at t'e area "asuno u#ied #ortions o& t'e #u%li do ain, and t'at a ording to t'e ##raisal Co ittee onstituted under d inistrati e 3rder No. 144 %t'e President o& t'e P'ili##ines, t'e reasona%le and &air ar et alue o& t'e rig'ts and interests o& all t'e de&endants "'i ' "in %e a&&e ted %t'ese e inent do ain #ro eedings annot e- eed t'e total su o& P5 2, 71.40.

*'e #etitioner &iled a otion to dis iss on t'e ground t'at, inso&ar as it is on erned, t'e Re#u%li did not need and 'as not o u#ied t'eareas o ered % t'e a%o e entioned ining lai s and neit'er 'a e i #ro e ents %een ade on t'e said areas and t'at t'e area o ersground "'i ' is rugged in terrain &or "'i ' t'e P'ili##ine ilitar ade ould 'a e no use. B "a o& se#arate and s#e ial grounds &or dis issal, Benguet Consolidated, In . alleged t'at t'e aut'orit gi en % t'e President o& t'e P'ili##ines &or t'e e-#ro#riation #ro eedingsre&ers to #ri atel o"ned ineral lands, ining interests, and ot'er #ri ate interests o& #ri ate indi iduals and entities o& #ri ate indi iduals inertain #ortions o& t'e site sur e ed &or and #resentl o u#ied % t'e P'ili##ine ilitar ade at oa an, Baguio and t'at t'ee-#ro#riation o& Benguet Consolidated, In .8s ineral lai s is in iolation o& la".

*'e #etitioner states t'at its ineral lai s "ere lo ated sin e 19 at t'e latest. It argues t'at % su ' lo ation and #er&e tion, t'e land issegregated &ro t'e #u%li do ain e en as against t'e go ern ent. Citing Gold Greek Mining Corporation v. Rodriguez, et al !66 P'il. 259$, itstates t'at "'en t'e lo ation o& a ining lai is #er&e ted, t'is 'as t'e e&&e t o& a grant o& e- lusi e #ossession "it' rig't to t'e en o ent o& t'e sur&a e ground as "ell as o& all t'e inerals "it'in t'e lines o& t'e lai and t'at t'is rig't a not %e in&ringed.

Issue/Held : ;as t'e onde nation o& ining lai s ontrar to la"< No.

Rationale : *'e #etitioner8s argu ents 'a e no erit. *'e &iling o& e-#ro#riation #ro eedings re ogni(es t'e &a t t'at t'e #etitioner8s #ro#ert is no longer

#art o& t'e #u%li do ain. *'e #o"er o& e inent do ain re&ers to t'e #o"er o& go ern ent to ta e private property &or #u%li use. I& t'eineral lai s are #u%li , t'ere "ould %e no need to e-#ro#riate t'e . *'e ineral lai s o& t'e #etitioner are not %eing trans&erred toanot'er ining o #an or to a #u%li entit interested in t'e lai s as su '. *'e land "'ere t'e ineral lai s "ere lo ated is needed &or t'e P'ili##ine ilitar ade , a #u%li use o #letel unrelated to ining. *'e &a t t'at t'e lo ation o& a ining lai 'as %een #er&e teddoes not %ar t'e Go ern ent8s e-er ise o& its #o"er o& e inent do ain. *'e rig't o& e inent do ain o ers all &or s o& #ri ate #ro#ert ,tangi%le or intangi%le, and in ludes rig'ts "'i ' are atta 'ed to land.

*'e #etitioner ne-t raises a #ro edural #oint, "'et'er or not in e-#ro#riation #ro eedings an order o& onde nation a %e entered % t'eourt %e&ore a otion to dis iss is denied. In t'e instant ase t'e ruling on t'e otion to dis iss "as de&erred % t'e trial ourt in ie" o& a#ossi%le a i a%le settle ent. oreo er, a&ter t'e trial ourt entered an order o& onde nation o er t'e o% e tion o& t'e #etitioner, t'e ourtissued an order to t'e e&&e t t'at t'e trial ourt =... a es it o& re ord t'at, #ending negotiations %et"een t'e Go ern ent and BenguetConsolidated, In . said or#oration 'as not "ai ed its rig't to 'allenge #lainti&&8s rig't to onde n t'e ineral lai s in >uestion.=

*'e lo"er ourt 'eld: ?; 'en t'is Court issued t'e order de laring t'at #lainti&& 'as a la"&ul rig't to ta e t'e #ro#ert soug't to %e onde ned,it i #liedl o erruled de&endant8s otion to dis iss "'i ' in e-#ro#riation ases ta es t'e #la e o& an ans"er !@e . , Rule 67, Rules o& Court$, and "'at de&endant ould 'a e done at t'e ti e "ould 'a e %een to #resent e iden e on t'e &air ar et alue o& its #ro#erties.Aa ing sle#t on its rig'ts, Benguet Consolidated, In . an no longer 'a e t'is ase reo#ened &or t'e #resentation o& its e iden e.

*'is order "as not 'allenged % t'e #etitioner. Instead, it &iled its a%o e entioned se ond otion &or lari&i ation. It is to %e noted t'at in itsotion &or ne" trial and/or re onsideration, t'e #etitioner stated: ?Benguet Consolidated, In . does not dis#ute t'e rig't o& t'e go ern ent toe-er ise t'e #o"er o& e inent do ain "it' res#e t to its #ro#ert . Ao"e er, in so doing t'is ourt &ailed to o #l "it' t'e %asi onstitutional#ro ision t'at said #o"er an onl %e e-er ised upon payment of just compensation

nder t'ese ir u stan es, t'e #etitioner is esto##ed &ro >uestioning t'e #ro eedings o& onde nation &ollo"ed % t'e ourt. ;e annotondone t'e in onsistent #ositions o& t'e #etitioner. It is er lear &ro t'e state ents o& t'e #etitioner t'at it 'ad alread a%andoned itsearlier stand on t'e #ro#riet o& e-#ro#riation and t'at its intent s'i&ted to t'e ust o #ensation to %e #aid % t'e #lainti&& &or its onde ned#ro#erties.

*'e se ond issue enters on t'e a ount o& ust o #ensation "'i ' s'ould %e #aid % t'e res#ondent to t'e #etitioner &or t'e onde ned#ro#erties. *'e #etitioner assails t'e a##ellate ourt8s a##ro al o& t'e Co issioners8 Re#ort "'i ' &i-ed t'e a ount o& P7,5 2.46 as usto #ensation &or t'e ineral lai s. *'e #etitioner ontends t'at t'is a ount is % an standard ridi ulousl lo" and annot %e onsidered

ust and t'at in &a t t'e o issioners8 re#ort "as re e ted % t'e trial ourt. *'e #etitioner8s ining lai s "ere lassi&ied as non #rodu ingun#atented lai s. It "as esta%lis'ed t'at t'e area o& t'e ineral lai s %elonging to t'e #etitioner and in luded in t'e P'ili##ine ilitarReser ation "as 25.10E2 'e tares. Aen e, t'e o issioners arri ed at t'e total a ount o& P7,5 2.46 !25.10E2 - P 00.00$ as usto #ensation to %e #aid to t'e #etitioner &or its ining lai s.

;e &ind no reason to distur% t'e lo"er ourt8s &indings on t'is atter. *'e #etitioner 'as not ad an ed an reason &or us to re e t su '&indings. ;'ile it is true t'at a ourt a re e t a Co issioners8 Re#ort on t'e ground t'at t'e a ount allo"ed is #al#a%l inade>uate, it is to%e noted t'at t'e #etitioner 'erein 'as not su##orted its stand t'at t'e P7,5 2.46 ust o #ensation &or its ining lai s is % an standardridi ulousl lo" and annot %e onsidered ust. oreo er, it is to %e noted t'at unli e t'e #lainti&& and ot'er de&endants, t'e #etitioner did not

Na dia Carla . Foro !4 $+e%ruar 10, 2012

8/10/2019 11 Benguet Consolidated v. Republic

2/2

Special Civil Actions

&ile an o##osition to t'e Co issioners8 Re#ort in t'e lo"er ourt. *'e a##ellate ourt, 'o"e er, s'ould 'a e #ro ided &or t'e #a ent o& legal interest &ro t'e ti e t'e go ern ent too o er t'e #etitioner8s ining lai s until #a ent is ade % t'e go ern ent.

Na dia Carla . Foro !4 $+e%ruar 10, 2012