14 Republic vs CA and Heirs of Rosales

8/11/2019 14 Republic vs CA and Heirs of Rosales

1/6


2/6

Disareein with the amount of 0ust compensation and that part of the decision which ordered thepetitioner to pa" costs, the !atter fi!ed an appea! with the Court of Appea!s which affirmed the tria!court:s decision ;with the so!e modification that the p!aintiff4appe!!ant shou!d not pa" costs.; 3

Sti!! unconvinced, the petitioner fi!ed with us the present petition for review on certiorari on #oth;2uestions of facts and of !aw, in accordance with )epu#!ic Act No. 188(, in re!ation to )u!e 81 of the

)u!es of Court; 4and assined the fo!!owin errors

T/E )ES*ONDENT COO


3/6

!ands shou!d #e appraised at *'.1( per s2uare meter. True, the owners of !andsactua!!" within the *$3 H and *$( H c!ass wi!! !ose some amount, #ut the" shou!dtrace the #!ame to their own doorsteps. ... 7

The petitioner, on the other hand, affirms that the 0ust compensation of the epropriated !ands must#e va!ued at *$.((s2uare meter. The presence of the fo!!owin esta#!ishments, e.., the Su!tan/ote!, Sueco, +ree >ethodist Church, and the *hi!ippine Arm" Barrac7s in the vicinit" cannot #econsidered as materia! to the fiin of the price of the su#0ect properties, much !ess ma" thepresence of the mentioned esta#!ishments #e a reason for the increase in the mar7et va!ue of theaffected !ands for the fo!!owin reasons

S


4/6

ac2uired much !ater than the fi!in of the epropriation case in $&'(was on!" #ouht at *1,(((.(( per hectare or *(.1( per s2uare meter.This fact was testified to #" no !ess than the principa! witnesspresented #" the defendants, *ar7 Trainin Director >atias C.Defensor. >oreover, none of the defendants dec!ared their !andscovered #" the epropriation for more than *1,(((.(( per hectare

notwithstandin the provisions of *residentia! Decree No. '% datedDecem#er %, $&'3.

Besides, the area souht to #e epropriated herein is predominant!" aricu!tura! and coona!. This isevident from the testimon" of -ino *. Oconer, Actin Cit" Assessor of Butuan Cit", and Chairman ofthe Appraisa! Committee of the same Cit", to wit 8

After weihin the evidence on record and considerin the p!eadins fi!ed #" #oth parties, we are ofthe opinion that the tria! court did not err in fiin the price of the affected properties at *'.1( pers2uare meter.

F$G Even if the !ands in 2uestion were predominant!" aricu!tura! and coona! as evidenced #" theta dec!arations of the respondents as when as #" the testimon" of -ino Oconer the then Actin Cit"

Assessor of Butuan Cit", the presence of certain esta#!ishments within the vicinit", the Su!tan /ote!,the Sueco, the *hi!ippine Arm" Barrac7s, and the +ree >ethodist Church as ear!ier mentioned ma"#e considered reason enouh to improve the actua! c!assification of the properties. It is of common7now!ede that if there are severa! commercia! esta#!ishments, in a certain area as in the case at#ar, there is no dou#t that there wi!! #e more persons interested to purchase propert" ad0acent tothese esta#!ishments. An owner of parce! of !and in the vicinit" can, therefore, command a hiherprice.

The a!!eation that the Su!tan /ote! has ceased operations and that the Sueco is in daner ofc!osure due to poor #usiness cannot affect the fact that the areas occupied #" these esta#!ishmentsare sti!! commercia! in nature and the !ands surroundin them have #een advantaeous!" affected.

F3G The testimonies of the different witnesses #oth for the petitioner and the private respondents asto the mar7et va!ue of the properties do not certain!" 0ive with each other. Some of them opined thatthe mar7et va!ue of the affected properties were even !ower than *$.(( per s2uare meter. Some,however, #e!ieved otherwise, i.e., definite!" more than *$.(( per s2uare meter #ut not eceedin*$%.(( per s2uare meter.

The testimon" of +ederico -amio, a rea! estate #ro7er is, however, ver" revea!in.

... that in +e#ruar" $&'(, he was the #ro7er of Att". Arsenio T" who purchased oneand a ha!f hectares of !and from Anita Consin -!orente at *$.$( per s2uare meter9that the -!orentes so!d that propert" at *$.$( per s2uare meter #ecause the" were infinancia! stress9 and that in his opinion, areas a!on the road H $1( meters from thehihwa" H shou!d demand a fair cash va!ue of not !ess than *1.(( nor more than*$1.(( per s2uare meter if one is not forced to se!! the !and in the Bacansi area. 9


5/6

e choose to ive reat weiht on -amio:s testimon" in much the same wa" as the tria! court didfor his credi#i!it" was never impuned. >ore important!", he was a witness for the petitioner.

F5G The fact that the area within which the +ree >ethodist Church stands was purchased for the;meas!"; amount of *.$1 per s2uare meter is of no moment in this case. As mentioned #" thepetitioner herein, the !and was ac2uired #" the +ree >ethodist Church in $&11 or fifteen "ears #efore

the present action was commenced and the ta7in of the su#0ect properties. Not on!" did the currentprices rise durin the period, the su#0ect properties !i7ewise, even #efore the ta7in, improved theirc!assification with the construction of the different edifices a#ove4mentioned.

F1G The different ta dec!arations pein the va!ue per s2uare meter of the affected !and at *.31 and*.1( cannot #e considered re!ia#!e. As we said in EPZA vs. Dulay 10

Various factors can come into p!a" in the va!uation of specific properties sin!ed outfor epropriation. The va!ues iven #" provincia! assessors are usua!!" uniform forver" wide areas coverin severa! #arrios or even an entire town with the eception of

the po#!acion. Individua! differences are never ta7en into account. The va!ue of !andis #ased on such enera!ities as its possi#!e cu!tivation for rice, corn, coconuts, orother crops. Ver" often !and descri#ed as ;coona!; has #een cu!tivated forenerations. Bui!dins are descri#ed in terms of on!" two or three c!asses of #ui!dinmateria!s and estimates of areas are more often inaccurate than correct. Ta va!uescan serve as uides #ut cannot #e a#so!ute su#stitutes for 0ust compensation.

There is no showin that the court4appointed commissioners app!ied i!!ea! princip!es to theevidence su#mitted to them or that the" had disrearded a c!ear preponderance of evidence. Theamount of *'.1( per s2uare meter as adapted #" the tria! court is not ross!" eor#itant contrar" to

the c!aim of the petitioner.

As reards the third assinment of error, we aree with the petitioner that the mar7et va!ue of anepropriated propert" is determined at the time of the ta7in, 11"et, in this case, there is no showin that therespondent court disrearded this princip!e. In affirmin the decision of the court a 2uo, the respondent court mere!" mentioned as anafterthouht the deva!uation of the peso and the rise in the prices of commodities #ut these were not the #ases for the fiin of the amount of*'.1( as 0ust compensation.

/E)E+O)E, the decision appea!ed from is here#" A++I)>ED. The petitioner is here#" ordered topa" the amount of *'.1( per s2uare meter to the private respondents inc!udin !ea! interest fromthe ta7in of the su#0ect properties unti! fu!! pa"ment.

No costs.

SO O)DE)ED.

Yap (Chairman), Melenio!"errera, Paras and Padilla, ##., onur.

oot(ote


6/6

$ $1th @udicia! District, Branch II, the /onora#!e Vicente B. Echaves, @r., presidin@ude.

3 )ecord on Appea!, 3&5453$.

5 )o!!o, 6%, Decision of the Court of Appea!s promu!ated on >a" $$, $&'%, penned

#" then @ustice )amon C. +ernande with the concurrence of @ustices )icardo C.*uno and De!fin +!. Batacan.

8 )o!!o, 8$.

1 $d., 1641&.

% )ecord on Appea!, 5$1.

' $d., 5$&.

6 )o!!o, %$4%3.

& )ecord on Appea! 5$%.

$( .). No. 1&6%14), Apri! 3&, $&6',$34$5.

$$ Commissioner of *u#!ic /ihwa"s vs. Buros, No. -45%'(%, >arch 5$, $&6(, &%SC)A 65$9 >unicpa!it" of Daet vs. Court of Appea!s, No. -4516%$, Octo#er $6, $&'&,&5 SC)A 1(5.

Documents

14 Republic vs CA and Heirs of Rosales