Upload
add-all
View
239
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 1/22
G.R. No. L-20620 August 15, 1974
REPUBLIC OF TE PILIPPINE!, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
CAR"EN ". #$A. $E CA!TELL#I, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellant.
C.A. Mendoza & A. V. Raquiza and Alberto Cacnio & Associates for defendant-appellees.
%AL$I#AR, J.: p
Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga in its Civil Case No. 162, an
e!propriation proceeding.
Plaintiff-appellant, the "epu#lic of the Philippines, $hereinafter referred to as the "epu#lic% filed, on
&une 26, 1'(', a complaint for eminent domain against defendant-appellee, Carmen ). *da. de
Castellvi, +udicial administratri! of the estate of the late Alfonso de Castellvi $hereinafter referred to
as Castellvi%, over a parcel of land situated in the #arrio of an &ose, Florida#lanca, Pampanga,
descri#ed as follos
A parcel of land, /ot No. 1''-0 0ureau of /ands Plan o 2666. 0ounded on the
N # )aria Nieves 3oledo-4o5un on the # national road on the 7 # AFP
reservation, and on the N7 # AFP reservation. Containing an area of 8(',2''
s9uare meters, more or less, and registered in the name of Alfonso Castellvi under
3C3 No. 161 of the "egister of Pampanga ...
and against defendant-appellee )aria Nieves 3oledo 4o5un $hereinafter referred to as 3oledo-
4o5un over to parcels of land descri#ed as follos
A parcel of land $Portion /ot 0l:-1, 0ureau of /ands Plan Psd, 262(;. 0ounded on
the N # /ot , on the # /ot on the 7 # /ot 1-0, 0l:. 2 $e9uivalent to /ot
1''-0 o 2666 on the N7 # AFP militar reservation. Containing an area of
;(<,28 s9uare meters, more or less and registered in the name of )aria Nieves
3oledo-4o5un under 3C3 No. =8<= of the "egister of >eeds of Pampanga. ..., and
A parcel of land $Portion of lot , 0l:-1, 0ureau of /ands Plan Psd 262(;. 0oundedon the N # /ot No. , on the # school lot and national road, on the 7 # /ot
1-0 0l: 2 $e9uivalent to /ot 1''-0 o 2666%, on the N7 # /ot 1-0, 0l:-1.
Containing an area of ==,882 s9uare meters, more or less, and registered in the
name of )aria Nieves 3oledo 4o5un under 3C3 No. =8<= of the "egister of >eeds of
Pampanga, ....
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 2/22
In its complaint, the "epu#lic alleged, among other things, that the fair mar:et value of the a#ove-
mentioned lands, according to the Committee on Appraisal for the Province of Pampanga, as not
more than P2,<<< per hectare, or a total mar:et value of P2(',66'.1< and praed, that the
provisional value of the lands #e fi!ed at P2('.66'.1<, that the court authori5es plaintiff to ta:e
immediate possession of the lands upon deposit of that amount ith the Provincial 3reasurer of
Pampanga that the court appoints three commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the +ustcompensation for the propert sought to #e e!propriated, and that the court issues thereafter a final
order of condemnation.
?n &une 2', 1'(' the trial court issued an order fi!ing the provisional value of the lands at
P2(',66'.1<.
In her @motion to dismiss@ filed on &ul 1;, 1'(', Castellvi alleged, among other things, that the land
under her administration, #eing a residential land, had a fair mar:et value of P1(.<< per s9uare
meter, so it had a total mar:et value of P11,=',;=(.<< that the "epu#lic, through the Armed Forces
of the Philippines, particularl the Philippine Air Force, had #een, despite repeated demands, illegall
occuping her propert since &ul 1, 1'(6, there# preventing her from using and disposing of it,thus causing her damages # a of unreali5ed profits. 3his defendant praed that the complaint #e
dismissed, or that the "epu#lic #e ordered to pa her P1(.<< per s9uare meter, or a total of
P11,=',;=(.<<, plus interest thereon at 6 per annum from &ul 1, 1'(6 that the "epu#lic #e
ordered to pa her P(,<<<,<<<.<< as unreali5ed profits, and the costs of the suit.
0 order of the trial court, dated August, 1'(', Amparo C. >ia5, >olores 4. viuda de 4il, Paloma
Castellvi, Carmen Castellvi, "afael Castellvi, /uis Castellvi, Natividad Castellvi de "a9ui5a, &ose
Castellvi and Consuelo Castellvi ere alloed to intervene as parties defendants. u#se9uentl,
&oa9uin *. 4o5un, &r., hus#and of defendant Nieves 3oledo 4o5un, as also alloed # the court to
intervene as a part defendant.
After the "epu#lic had deposited ith the Provincial 3reasurer of Pampanga the amount of
P2(',66'.1<, the trial court ordered that the "epu#lic #e placed in possession of the lands. 3he
"epu#lic as actuall placed in possession of the lands on August 1<,
1'('. 1
In her @motion to dismiss@, dated ?cto#er 22, 1'(', 3oledo-4o5un alleged, among other things, that
her to parcels of land ere residential lands, in fact a portion ith an area of ;,< s9uare
meters had alread #een su#divided into different lots for sale to the general pu#lic, and the
remaining portion had alread #een set aside for e!pansion sites of the alread completed
su#divisions that the fair mar:et value of said lands as P1(.<< per s9uare meter, so the had a
total mar:et value of P=,<=(,68(.<< and she praed that the complaint #e dismissed, or that she #epaid the amount of P=,<=(,68(.<<, plus interest thereon at the rate of 6 per annum from ?cto#er
1, 1'(', and attorneBs fees in the amount of P(<,<<<.<<.
Intervenors &ose Castellvi and Consuelo Castellvi in their anser, filed on Fe#ruar 11, 1'6<, and
also intervenor &oa9uin 4o5un, &r., hus#and of defendant )aria Nieves 3oledo-4o5un, in his motion
to dismiss, dated )a 28, 1'6<, all alleged that the value of the lands sought to #e e!propriated as
at the rate of P1(.<< per s9uare meter.
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 3/22
?n Novem#er ;, 1'(', the trial court authori5ed the Provincial 3reasurer of Pampanga to pa
defendant 3oledo-4o5un the sum of P1<8,6<'.<< as provisional value of her lands. 2 ?n )a 16,
1'6< the trial Court authori5ed the Provincial 3reasurer of Pampanga to pa defendant Castellvi the
amount of P1(1,=('.=< as provisional value of the land under her administration, and ordered said
defendant to deposit the amount ith the Philippine National 0an: under the supervision of the >eput
Cler: of Court. In another order of )a 16, 1'6< the trial Court entered an order of condemnation. &
3he trial Court appointed three commissioners Att. Amadeo u5on, Cler: of Court, as
commissioner for the court Att. Felicisimo 4. Pamandanan, counsel of the Philippine National 0an:
0ranch at Florida#lanca, for the plaintiff and Att. /eonardo F. /ansangan, Filipino legal counsel at
Clar: Air 0ase, for the defendants. 3he Commissioners, after having 9ualified themselves,
proceeded to the performance of their duties.
?n )arch 1(,1'61 the Commissioners su#mitted their report and recommendation, herein, after
having determined that the lands sought to #e e!propriated ere residential lands, the
recommended unanimousl that the loest price that should #e paid as P1<.<< per s9uare meter,
for #oth the lands of Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un that an additional P(,<<<.<< #e paid to 3oledo-
4o5un for improvements found on her land that legal interest on the compensation, computed from
August 1<, 1'(', #e paid after deducting the amounts alread paid to the oners, and that no
conse9uential damages #e aarded. 4 3he CommissionersB report as o#+ected to # all the parties in
the case D # defendants Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un, ho insisted that the fair mar:et value of their
lands should #e fi!ed at P1(.<< per s9uare meter and # the "epu#lic, hich insisted that the price to #e
paid for the lands should #e fi!ed at P<.2< per s9uare meter. 5
After the parties-defendants and intervenors had filed their respective memoranda, and the
"epu#lic, after several e!tensions of time, had adopted as its memorandum its o#+ections to the
report of the Commissioners, the trial court, on )a 26, 1'61, rendered its decision 6 the dispositive
portion of hich reads as follos
7E"F?", ta:ing into account all the foregoing circumstances, and that the
lands are titled, ... the rising trend of land values ..., and the loered purchasing
poer of the Philippine peso, the court finds that the unanimous recommendation of
the commissioners of ten $P1<.<<% pesos per s9uare meter for the three lots of the
defendants su#+ect of this action is fair and +ust.
!!! !!! !!!
3he plaintiff ill pa 6 interest per annum on the total value of the lands of
defendant 3oledo-4o5un since $sic% the amount deposited as provisional value from
August 1<, 1'(' until full pament is made to said defendant or deposit therefor is
made in court.
In respect to the defendant Castellvi, interest at 6 per annum ill also #e paid #
the plaintiff to defendant Castellvi from &ul 1, 1'(6 hen plaintiff commenced its
illegal possession of the Castellvi land hen the instant action had not et #een
commenced to &ul 1<, 1'(' hen the provisional value thereof as actuall
deposited in court, on the total value of the said $Castellvi% land as herein ad+udged.
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 4/22
3he same rate of interest shall #e paid from &ul 11, 1'(' on the total value of the
land herein ad+udged minus the amount deposited as provisional value, or
P1(1,=('.=<, such interest to run until full pament is made to said defendant or
deposit therefor is made in court. All the intervenors having failed to produce
evidence in support of their respective interventions, said interventions are ordered
dismissed.
3he costs shall #e charged to the plaintiff.
?n &une 21, 1'61 the "epu#lic filed a motion for a ne trial andor reconsideration, upon the
grounds of nel-discovered evidence, that the decision as not supported # the evidence, and
that the decision as against the la, against hich motion defendants Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un
filed their respective oppositions. ?n &ul =, 1'61 hen the motion of the "epu#lic for ne trial
andor reconsideration as called for hearing, the "epu#lic filed a supplemental motion for ne trial
upon the ground of additional nel-discovered evidence. 3his motion for ne trial andor
reconsideration as denied # the court on &ul 12, 1'61.
?n &ul 18, 1'61 the "epu#lic gave notice of its intention to appeal from the decision of )a 26,
1'61 and the order of &ul 12, 1'61. >efendant Castellvi also filed, on &ul 18, 1'61, her notice of
appeal from the decision of the trial court.
3he "epu#lic filed various e!-parte motions for e!tension of time ithin hich to file its record on
appeal. 3he "epu#licBs record on appeal as finall su#mitted on >ecem#er 6, 1'61.
>efendants Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un filed not onl a +oint opposition to the approval of the
"epu#licBs record on appeal, #ut also a +oint memorandum in support of their opposition. 3he
"epu#lic also filed a memorandum in support of its praer for the approval of its record on appeal.
?n >ecem#er 28, 1'61 the trial court issued an order declaring #oth the record on appeal filed #the "epu#lic, and the record on appeal filed # defendant Castellvi as having #een filed out of time,
there# dismissing #oth appeals.
?n &anuar 11, 1'62 the "epu#lic filed a @motion to stri:e out the order of >ecem#er 28, 1'61 and
for reconsideration@, and su#se9uentl an amended record on appeal, against hich motion the
defendants Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un filed their opposition. ?n &ul 26, 1'62 the trial court issued
an order, stating that @in the interest of e!pedienc, the 9uestions raised ma #e properl and finall
determined # the upreme Court,@ and at the same time it ordered the olicitor 4eneral to su#mit a
record on appeal containing copies of orders and pleadings specified therein. In an order dated
Novem#er 1', 1'62, the trial court approved the "epu#licBs record on appeal as amended.
>efendant Castellvi did not insist on her appeal. >efendant 3oledo-4o5un did not appeal.
3he motion to dismiss the "epu#licBs appeal as reiterated # appellees Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un
#efore this Court, #ut this Court denied the motion.
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 5/22
In her motion of August 11, 1'6;, appellee Castellvi sought to increase the provisional value of her
land. 3he "epu#lic, in its comment on CastellviBs motion, opposed the same. 3his Court denied
CastellviBs motion in a resolution dated ?cto#er 2,1'6;.
3he motion of appellees, Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un, dated ?cto#er 6, 1'6', praing that the #e
authori5ed to mortgage the lands su#+ect of e!propriation, as denied # this Court or ?cto#er 1;,1'6'.
?n Fe#ruar 1;, 1'82, Atts. Al#erto Cacnio, and Associates, counsel for the estate of the late >on
Alfonso de Castellvi in the e!propriation proceedings, filed a notice of attorneBs lien, stating that as
per agreement ith the administrator of the estate of >on Alfonso de Castellvi the shall receive #
a of attorneBs fees, @the sum e9uivalent to ten per centum of hatever the court ma finall
decide as the e!propriated price of the propert su#+ect matter of the case.@
---------
0efore this Court, the "epu#lic contends that the loer court erred
1. In finding the price of P1< per s9uare meter of the lands su#+ect of the instant
proceedings as +ust compensation
2. In holding that the @ta:ing@ of the properties under e!propriation commenced ith
the filing of this action
. In ordering plaintiff-appellant to pa 6 interest on the ad+udged value of the
Castellvi propert to start from &ul of 1'(6
;. In dening plaintiff-appellantBs motion for ne trial #ased on nel discoveredevidence.
In its #rief, the "epu#lic discusses the second error assigned as the first issue to #e considered. 7e
shall follo the se9uence of the "epu#licBs discussion.
1. In support of the assigned error that the loer court erred in holding that the @ta:ing@ of the
properties under e!propriation commenced ith the filing of the complaint in this case, the "epu#lic
argues that the @ta:ing@ should #e rec:oned from the ear 1';8 hen # virtue of a special lease
agreement #eteen the "epu#lic and appellee Castellvi, the former as granted the @right and
privilege@ to #u the propert should the lessor ish to terminate the lease, and that in the event of
such sale, it as stipulated that the fair mar:et value should #e as of the time of occupanc and thatthe permanent improvements amounting to more that half a million pesos constructed during a
period of telve ears on the land, su#+ect of e!propriation, ere indicative of an agreed pattern of
permanenc and sta#ilit of occupanc # the Philippine Air Force in the interest of national
ecurit. 7
Appellee Castellvi, on the other hand, maintains that the @ta:ing@ of propert under the poer of
eminent domain re9uires to essential elements, to it $1% entrance and occupation # condemn or
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 6/22
upon the private propert for more than a momentar or limited period, and $2% devoting it to a pu#lic
use in such a a as to oust the oner and deprive him of all #eneficial en+oment of the propert.
3his appellee argues that in the instant case the first element is anting, for the contract of lease
relied upon provides for a lease from ear to ear that the second element is also anting, #ecause
the "epu#lic as paing the lessor Castellvi a monthl rental of P;;(.(= and that the contract of
lease does not grant the "epu#lic the @right and privilege@ to #u the premises @at the value at thetime of occupanc.@ '
Appellee 3oledo-4o5un did not comment on the "epu#licBs argument in support of the second error
assigned, #ecause as far as she as concerned the "epu#lic had not ta:en possession of her lands
prior to August 1<, 1'('. 9
In order to #etter comprehend the issues raised in the appeal, in so far as the Castellvi propert is
concerned, it should #e noted that the Castellvi propert had #een occupied # the Philippine Air
Force since 1';8 under a contract of lease, tpified # the contract mar:ed !h. ;-Castellvi, the
pertinent portions of hich read
C?N3"AC3 ?F /A
3his A4")N3 ?F /A )A> AN> N3"> into # and #eteen
IN33A3 3A3 ?F A/F?N? > CA3//*I, represented # CA")N ).
> CA3//*I, &udicial Administratri! ... hereinafter called the /?" and 3E
"PG0/IC ?F 3E PEI/IPPIN represented # )A&. 4N. CA/IH3? >GG,
Chief of taff of the A")> F?"C ?F 3E PEI/IPPIN, hereinafter called the
/,
7I3N3E
1. For and in consideration of the rentals hereinafter reserved and the mutual terms,
covenants and conditions of the parties, the /?" has, and # these presents
does, lease and let unto the / the folloing descri#ed land together ith the
improvements thereon and appurtenances thereof, viz
Gn 3erreno, /ote No. 28 del Plano de su#division Psu ;8(2, parte de la hacienda
de Campauit, situado en el 0arrio de an &ose, )unicipio de Florida#lanca
Pampanga. ... midiendo una e!tension superficial de cuatro milliones once mil cuatro
cientos trienta cinco $;,<<1,;(% JsicK metros cuadrados, mas o menos.
?ut of the a#ove descri#ed propert, 8(.' hectares thereof are actuall occupiedand covered # this contract. .
A#ove lot is more particularl descri#ed in 3C3 No. 1<16, province of
Pampanga ...
of hich premises, the /?" arrants that heshetheisare the registered oner$s% and ith
full authorit to e!ecute a contract of this nature.
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 7/22
2. 3he term of this lease shall #e for the period #eginning &ul 1, 1'(2 the date the
premises ere occupied # the PEI/IPPIN AI" F?"C, AFP until &une <, 1'(,
su#+ect to reneal for another ear at the option of the / or unless sooner
terminated # the / as hereinafter provided.
. 3he /?" here# arrants that the / shall have 9uiet, peaceful andundistur#ed possession of the demised premises throughout the full term or period of
this lease and the /?" underta:es ithout cost to the / to e+ect all
trespassers, #ut should the /?" fail to do so, the / at its option ma
proceed to do so at the e!pense of the /?". 3he /?" further agrees that
should heshethe sell or encum#er all or an part of the herein descri#ed premises
during the period of this lease, an conveance ill #e conditioned on the right of the
/ hereunder.
;. 3he / shall pa to the /?" as monthl rentals under this lease the
sum of F?G" EGN>"> FIF3-FI* P? L (=1<< $P;((.(=% ...
(. 3he / ma, at an time prior to the termination of this lease, use the
propert for an purpose or purposes and, at its on costs and e!pense ma:e
alteration, install facilities and fi!tures and errect additions ... hich facilities or
fi!tures ... so placed in, upon or attached to the said premises shall #e and remain
propert of the / and ma #e removed therefrom # the / prior to the
termination of this lease. 3he / shall surrender possession of the premises
upon the e!piration or termination of this lease and if so re9uired # the /?",
shall return the premises in su#stantiall the same condition as that e!isting at the
time same ere first occupied # the AFP, reasona#le and ordinar ear and tear
and damages # the elements or # circumstances over hich the / has no
control e!cepted P"?*I>>, that if the /?" so re9uires the return of thepremises in such condition, the /?" shall give ritten notice thereof to the
/ at least tent $2<% das #efore the termination of the lease and provided,
further, that should the /?" give notice ithin the time specified a#ove, the
/ shall have the right and privilege to compensate the /?" at the fair
value or the e9uivalent, in lieu of performance of its o#ligation, if an, to restore the
premises. Fair value is to #e determined as the value at the time of occupanc less
fair ear and tear and depreciation during the period of this lease.
6. 3he / ma terminate this lease at an time during the term hereof # giving
ritten notice to the /?" at least thirt $<% das in advance ...
8. 3he / should not #e responsi#le, e!cept under special legislation for an
damages to the premises # reason of com#at operations, acts of 4?>, the
elements or other acts and deeds not due to the negligence on the part of the
/.
=. 3his /A A4")N3 supersedes and voids an and all agreements and
underta:ings, oral or ritten, previousl entered into #eteen the parties covering the
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 8/22
propert herein leased, the same having #een merged herein. 3his A4")N3
ma not #e modified or altered e!cept # instrument in riting onl dul signed # the
parties. 10
It as stipulated # the parties, that @the foregoing contract of lease $!h. ;, Castellvi% is Bsimilar in
terms and conditions, including the dateB, ith the annual contracts entered into from ear to ear#eteen defendant Castellvi and the "epu#lic of the Philippines $p. 18, t.s.n., *ol. III%@. 11 It is
undisputed, therefore, that the "epu#lic occupied CastellviBs land from &ul 1, 1';8, # virtue of the
a#ove-mentioned contract, on a ear to ear #asis $from &ul 1 of each ear to &une < of the succeeding
ear% under the terms and conditions therein stated.
0efore the e!piration of the contract of lease on &une <, 1'(6 the "epu#lic sought to rene the
same #ut Castellvi refused. 7hen the AFP refused to vacate the leased premises after the
termination of the contract, on &ul 11, 1'(6, Castellvi rote to the Chief of taff, AFP, informing the
latter that the heirs of the propert had decided not to continue leasing the propert in 9uestion
#ecause the had decided to su#divide the land for sale to the general pu#lic, demanding that the
propert #e vacated ithin < das from receipt of the letter, and that the premises #e returned in
su#stantiall the same condition as #efore occupanc $!h. ( D Castellvi%. A follo-up letter as
sent on &anuar 12, 1'(8, demanding the deliver and return of the propert ithin one month from
said date $!h. 6 Castellvi%. ?n &anuar <, 1'(8, /ieutenant 4eneral Alfonso Arellano, Chief of
taff, ansered the letter of Castellvi, saing that it as difficult for the arm to vacate the premises
in vie of the permanent installations and other facilities orth almost P(<<,<<<.<< that ere
erected and alread esta#lished on the propert, and that, there #eing no other recourse, the
ac9uisition of the propert # means of e!propriation proceedings ould #e recommended to the
President $!hi#it @8@ D Castellvi%.
>efendant Castellvi then #rought suit in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, in Civil Case No.
1;(=, to e+ect the Philippine Air Force from the land. 7hile this e+ectment case as pending, the
"epu#lic instituted these e!propriation proceedings, and, as stated earlier in this opinion, the
"epu#lic as placed in possession of the lands on August 1<, 1'(', ?n Novem#er 21, 1'(', the
Court of First Instance of Pampanga, dismissed Civil Case No. 1;(=, upon petition of the parties, in
an order hich, in part, reads as follos
1. Plaintiff has agreed, as a matter of fact has alread signed an agreement ith
defendants, here# she has agreed to receive the rent of the lands, su#+ect matter
of the instant case from &une <, 1'66 up to 1'(' hen the Philippine Air Force as
placed in possession # virtue of an order of the Court upon depositing the
provisional amount as fi!ed # the Provincial Appraisal Committee ith the Provincial
3reasurer of Pampanga
2. 3hat #ecause of the a#ove-cited agreement herein the administratri! decided to
get the rent corresponding to the rent from 1'(6 up to 1'(' and considering that this
action is one of illegal detainer andor to recover the possession of said land # virtue
of non-pament of rents, the instant case no has #ecome moot and academic
andor # virtue of the agreement signed # plaintiff, she has aived her cause of
action in the a#ove-entitled case. 12
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 9/22
3he "epu#lic urges that the @ta:ing @ of CastellviBs propert should #e deemed as of the ear 1';8
# virtue of afore-9uoted lease agreement. In American &urisprudence, *ol. 26, 2nd edition, ection
1(8, on the su#+ect of @minent >omain, e read the definition of @ta:ing@ $in eminent domain% as
follos
3a:ingB under the poer of eminent domain ma #e defined generall as enteringupon private propert for more than a momentar period, and, under the arrant or
color of legal authorit, devoting it to a pu#lic use, or otherise informall
appropriating or in+uriousl affecting it in such a a as su#stantiall to oust the
oner and deprive him of all #eneficial en+oment thereof. 1&
Pursuant to the aforecited authorit, a num#er of circumstances must #e present in the @ta:ing@ of
propert for purposes of eminent domain.
First, the e!propriator must enter a private propert. 3his circumstance is present in the instant case,
hen # virtue of the lease agreement the "epu#lic, through the AFP, too: possession of the
propert of Castellvi.
econd, the entrance into private propert must #e for more than a momentar period. @)omentar@
means, @lasting #ut a moment of #ut a momentBs duration@ $3he ?!ford nglish >ictionar, *olume
*I, page ('6% @lasting a ver short time transitor having a ver #rief life operative or recurring at
ever moment@ $7e#sterBs 3hird International >ictionar, 1'6 edition.% 3he ord @momentar@ hen
applied to possession or occupanc of $real% propert should #e construed to mean @a limited period@
D not indefinite or permanent. 3he aforecited lease contract as for a period of one ear, renea#le
from ear to ear. 3he entr on the propert, under the lease, is temporar, and considered
transitor. 3he fact that the "epu#lic, through the AFP, constructed some installations of a
permanent nature does not alter the fact that the entr into the land as transitor, or intended to last
a ear, although renea#le from ear to ear # consent of B3he oner of the land. 0 e!pressprovision of the lease agreement the "epu#lic, as lessee, undertoo: to return the preises in
su#stantiall the same condition as at the time the propert as first occupied # the AFP. It is
claimed that the intention of the lessee as to occup the land permanentl, as ma #e inferred from
the construction of permanent improvements. 0ut this @intention@ cannot prevail over the clear and
e!press terms of the lease contract. Intent is to #e deduced from the language emploed # the
parties, and the terms Bof the contract, hen unam#iguous, as in the instant case, are conclusive in
the a#sence of averment and proof of mista:e or fraud D the 9uestion #eing not hat the intention
as, #ut hat is e!pressed in the language used. $Cit of )anila v. "i5al Par: Co., Inc., ( Phil. (1(,
(2(% )agdalena state, Inc. v. )ric:, 81 Phil. ;;, ;=%. )oreover, in order to +udge the intention
of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and su#se9uent acts shall #e principall
considered $Art. 181, Civil Code%. If the intention of the lessee $"epu#lic% in 1';8 as reall tooccup permanentl CastellviBs propert, h as the contract of lease entered into on ear to ear
#asisM 7h as the lease agreement reneed from ear to earM 7h did not the "epu#lic
e!propriate this land of Castellvi in 1';' hen, according to the "epu#lic itself, it e!propriated the
other parcels of land that it occupied at the same time as the Castellvi land, for the purpose of
converting them into a +et air #aseM 14 It might reall have #een the intention of the "epu#lic to
e!propriate the lands in 9uestion at some future time, #ut certainl mere notice - much less an implied
notice D of such intention on the part of the "epu#lic to e!propriate the lands in the future did not, and
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 10/22
could not, #ind the landoner, nor #ind the land itself. 3he e!propriation must #e actuall commenced in
court $"epu#lic vs. 0alosis, et al., '6 Phil. ;61, ;=;%.
3hird, the entr into the propert should #e under arrant or color of legal authorit. 3his
circumstance in the @ta:ing@ ma #e considered as present in the instant case, #ecause the "epu#lic
entered the Castellvi propert as lessee.
Fourth, the propert must #e devoted to a pu#lic use or otherise informall appropriated or
in+uriousl affected. It ma #e conceded that the circumstance of the propert #eing devoted to
pu#lic use is present #ecause the propert as used # the air force of the AFP.
Fifth, the utili5ation of the propert for pu#lic use must #e in such a a as to oust the oner and
deprive him of all #eneficial en+oment of the propert. In the instant case, the entr of the "epu#lic
into the propert and its utili5ation of the same for pu#lic use did not oust Castellvi and deprive her of
all #eneficial en+oment of the propert. Castellvi remained as oner, and as continuousl
recogni5ed as oner # the "epu#lic, as shon # the reneal of the lease contract from ear to
ear, and # the provision in the lease contract here# the "epu#lic undertoo: to return the
propert to Castellvi hen the lease as terminated. Neither as Castellvi deprived of all the
#eneficial en+oment of the propert, #ecause the "epu#lic as #ound to pa, and had #een paing,
Castellvi the agreed monthl rentals until the time hen it filed the complaint for eminent domain on
&une 26, 1'('.
It is clear, therefore, that the @ta:ing@ of CatellviBs propert for purposes of eminent domain cannot #e
considered to have ta:en place in 1';8 hen the "epu#lic commenced to occup the propert as
lessee thereof. 7e find merit in the contention of Castellvi that to essential elements in the @ta:ing@
of propert under the poer of eminent domain, namel $1% that the entrance and occupation # the
condemnor must #e for a permanent, or indefinite period, and $2% that in devoting the propert to
pu#lic use the oner as ousted from the propert and deprived of its #eneficial use, ere not
present hen the "epu#lic entered and occupied the Castellvi propert in 1';8.
Gntena#le also is the "epu#licBs contention that although the contract #eteen the parties as one
of lease on a ear to ear #asis, it as @in realit a more or less permanent right to occup the
premises under the guise of lease ith the Bright and privilegeB to #u the propert should the lessor
ish to terminate the lease,@ and @the right to #u the propert is merged as an integral part of the
lease relationship ... so much so that the fair mar:et value has #een agreed upon, not, as of the time
of purchase, #ut as of the time of occupanc@ 15 7e cannot accept the "epu#licBs contention that a
lease on a ear to ear #asis can give rise to a permanent right to occup, since # e!press legal
provision a lease made for a determinate time, as as the lease of CastellviBs land in the instant case,
ceases upon the da fi!ed, ithout need of a demand $Article 166', Civil Code%. Neither can it #e said
that the right of eminent domain ma #e e!ercised # simpl leasing the premises to #e e!propriated
$"ule 68, ection 1, "ules of Court%. Nor can it #e accepted that the "epu#lic ould enter into a contract
of lease here its real intention as to #u, or h the "epu#lic should enter into a simulated contract of
lease $@under the guise of lease@, as e!pressed # counsel for the "epu#lic% hen all the time the
"epu#lic had the right of eminent domain, and could e!propriate CastellviBs land if it anted to ithout
resorting to an guise hatsoever. Neither can e see ho a right to #u could #e merged in a contract of
lease in the a#sence of an agreement #eteen the parties to that effect. 3o sustain the contention of the
"epu#lic is to sanction a practice here# in order to secure a lo price for a land hich the government
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 11/22
intends to e!propriate $or ould eventuall e!propriate% it ould first negotiate ith the oner of the land
to lease the land $for sa ten or tent ears% then e!propriate the same hen the lease is a#out to
terminate, then claim that the @ta:ing@ of the propert for the purposes of the e!propriation #e rec:oned as
of the date hen the 4overnment started to occup the propert under the lease, and then assert that the
value of the propert #eing e!propriated #e rec:oned as of the start of the lease, in spite of the fact that
the value of the propert, for man good reasons, had in the meantime increased during the period of the
lease. 3his ould #e sanctioning hat o#viousl is a deceptive scheme, hich ould have the effect of
depriving the oner of the propert of its true and fair mar:et value at the time hen the e!propriation
proceedings ere actuall instituted in court. !he Republic"s clai that it had the #ri$ht and privile$e# to
bu% the propert% at the value that it had at the tie hen it first occupied the propert% as lessee nohere
appears in the lease contract . 7hat as agreed e!pressl in paragraph No. ( of the lease agreement as
that, should the lessor re9uire the lessee to return the premises in the same condition as at the time the
same as first occupied # the AFP, the lessee ould have the @right and privilege@ $or option% of paing
the lessor hat it ould fairl cost to put the premises in the same condition as it as at the
commencement of the lease, in lieu of the lesseeBs performance of the underta:ing to put the land in said
condition. 3he @fair value@ at the time of occupanc, mentioned in the lease agreement, does not refer to
the value of the propert if #ought # the lessee, #ut refers to the cost of restoring the propert in the
same condition as of the time hen the lessee too: possession of the propert. uch fair value cannotrefer to the purchase price, for purchase as never intended # the parties to the lease contract. It is a
rule in the interpretation of contracts that @Eoever general the terms of a contract ma #e, the shall not
#e understood to comprehend things that are distinct and cases that are different from those upon hich
the parties intended to agree@ $Art. 182, Civil Code%.
7e hold, therefore, that the @ta:ing@ of the Castellvi propert should not #e rec:oned as of the ear
1';8 hen the "epu#lic first occupied the same pursuant to the contract of lease, and that the +ust
compensation to #e paid for the Castellvi propert should not #e determined on the #asis of the
value of the propert as of that ear. 3he loer court did not commit an error hen it held that the
@ta:ing@ of the propert under e!propriation commenced ith the filing of the complaint in this case.
Gnder ection ; of "ule 68 of the "ules of Court, 16 the @+ust compensation@ is to #e determined as of
the date of the filing of the complaint. 3his Court has ruled that hen the ta:ing of the propert sought to
#e e!propriated coincides ith the commencement of the e!propriation proceedings, or ta:es place
su#se9uent to the filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the +ust compensation should #e determined
as of the date of the filing of the complaint. $"epu#lic vs. Philippine National 0an:, /-1;1(=, April 12,
1'61, 1 C"A '(8, '61-'62%. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the "epu#lic as placed in
possession of the Castellvi propert, # authorit of the court, on August 1<, 1'('. 3he @ta:ing@ of the
Castellvi propert for the purposes of determining the +ust compensation to #e paid must, therefore, #e
rec:oned as of &une 26, 1'(' hen the complaint for eminent domain as filed.
"egarding the to parcels of land of 3oledo-4o5un, also sought to #e e!propriated, hich had never
#een under lease to the "epu#lic, the "epu#lic as placed in possession of said lands, also #authorit of the court, on August 1<, 1'(', 3he ta:ing of those lands, therefore, must also #e
rec:oned as of &une 26, 1'(', the date of the filing of the complaint for eminent domain.
2. "egarding the first assigned error D discussed as the second issue D the "epu#lic maintains
that, even assuming that the value of the e!propriated lands is to #e determined as of &une 26,
1'(', the price of P1<.<< per s9uare meter fi!ed # the loer court @is not onl e!hor#itant #ut also
unconsciona#le, and almost fantastic@. ?n the other hand, #oth Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un maintain
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 12/22
that their lands are residential lands ith a fair mar:et value of not less than P1(.<< per s9uare
meter.
3he loer court found, and declared, that the lands of Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un are residential
lands. 3he finding of the loer court is in consonance ith the unanimous opinion of the three
commissioners ho, in their report to the court, declared that the lands are residential lands.
3he "epu#lic assails the finding that the lands are residential, contending that the plans of the
appellees to convert the lands into su#division for residential purposes ere onl on paper, there
#eing no overt acts on the part of the appellees hich indicated that the su#division pro+ect had #een
commenced, so that an compensation to #e aarded on the #asis of the plans ould #e
speculative. 3he "epu#licBs contention is not ell ta:en. 7e find evidence shoing that the lands in
9uestion had ceased to #e devoted to the production of agricultural crops, that the had #ecome
adapta#le for residential purposes, and that the appellees had actuall ta:en steps to convert their
lands into residential su#divisions even #efore the "epu#lic filed the complaint for eminent domain.
In the case of Cit of Manila vs. Corrales $2 Phil. =2, '=% this Court laid don #asic guidelines in
determining the value of the propert e!propriated for pu#lic purposes. 3his Court said
In determining the value of land appropriated for pu#lic purposes, the sae
consideration are to be re$arded as in a sale of propert% beteen private parties.
!he inquir%' in such cases, must #e hat is the propert orth in the mar:et, vieed
not merel ith reference to the uses to hich it is at the time applied, #ut ith
reference to the uses to hich it is plainl adapted, that is to sa, 7hat is it orth
from its availa#ilit for valua#le usesM
o man and varied are the circumstances to #e ta:en into account in determining
the value of propert condemned for pu#lic purposes, that it is practicall impossi#le
to formulate a rule to govern its appraisement in all cases. !ceptionalcircumstances ill modif the most carefull guarded rule, #ut, as a general thing, e
should sa that the compensation of the oner is to #e estimated # reference to the
use for hich the propert is suita#le, having regard to the e!isting #usiness or ants
of the communit, or such as ma #e reasona#l e!pected in the immediate future.
$)iss. and "um "iver 0oom Co. vs. Patterson, '= G.., ;<%.
In e!propriation proceedings, therefore, the oner of the land has the right to its value for the use for
hich it ould #ring the most in the mar:et. 17 3he oner ma thus sho ever advantage that his
propert possesses, present and prospective, in order that the price it could #e sold for in the mar:et ma
#e satisfactoril determined. 1' 3he oner ma also sho that the propert is suita#le for division into
village or ton lots. 19
3he trial court, therefore, correctl considered, among other circumstances, the proposed
su#division plans of the lands sought to #e e!propriated in finding that those lands are residential
lots. 3his finding of the loer court is supported not onl # the unanimous opinion of the
commissioners, as em#odied in their report, #ut also # the Provincial Appraisal Committee of the
province of Pampanga composed of the Provincial 3reasurer, the Provincial Auditor and the >istrict
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 13/22
ngineer. In the minutes of the meeting of the Provincial Appraisal Committee, held on )a 1;, 1'('
$!h. 1-Castellvi% 7e read in its "esolution No. 1< the folloing
. ince 1'(8 the land has #een classified as residential in vie of its pro!imit to the
air #ase and due to the fact that it as not #eing devoted to agriculture. In fact, there
is a plan to convert it into a su#division for residential purposes. 3he ta!es due onthe propert have #een paid #ased on its classification as residential land
3he evidence shos that Castellvi #roached the idea of su#dividing her land into residential lots as
earl as &ul 11, 1'(6 in her letter to the Chief of taff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. $!h.
(-Castellvi% As a matter of fact, the laout of the su#division plan as tentativel approved # the
National Planning Commission on eptem#er 8, 1'(6. $!h. =-Castellvi%. 3he land of Castellvi had
not #een devoted to agriculture since 1';8 hen it as leased to the Philippine Arm. In 1'(8 said
land as classified as residential, and ta!es #ased on its classification as residential had #een paid
since then $!h. 1-Castellvi%. 3he location of the Castellvi land +ustifies its suita#ilit for a residential
su#division. As found # the trial court, @It is at the left side of the entrance of the 0asa Air 0ase and
#ounded on to sides # roads $!h. 1-Castellvi%, paragraphs 1 and 2, !h. 12-Castellvi%, thepo#lacion, $of Florida#lanca% the municipal #uilding, and the Pampanga ugar )ills are closed #.
3he #arrio schoolhouse and chapel are also near $3..N. Novem#er 2,1'6<, p. 6=%.@ 20
3he lands of 3oledo-4o5un $/ot 1-0 and /ot % are practicall of the same condition as the land of
Castellvi. 3he lands of 3oledo-4o5un ad+oin the land of Castellvi. 3he are also contiguous to the
0asa Air 0ase, and are along the road. 3hese lands are near the #arrio schoolhouse, the #arrio
chapel, the Pampanga ugar )ills, and the po#lacion of Florida#lanca $!hs. 1, and ;-3oledo-
4o5un%. As a matter of fact, regarding lot 1-0 it had alread #een surveed and su#divided, and its
conversion into a residential su#division as tentativel approved # the National Planning
Commission on &ul =, 1'(' $!hs. ( and 6 3oledo-4o5un%. As earl as &une, 1'(=, no less than 2
man connected ith the Philippine Air Force among them commissioned officers, non-commissionofficers, and enlisted men had re9uested )r. and )rs. &oa9uin >. 4o5un to open a su#division on
their lands in 9uestion $!hs. =, =-A to =--3oledo-4o5un%. 21
7e agree ith the findings, and the conclusions, of the loer court that the lands that are the su#+ect
of e!propriation in the present case, as of August 1<, 1'(' hen the same ere ta:en possession of
# the "epu#lic, ere residential lands and ere adapta#le for use as residential su#divisions.
Indeed, the oners of these lands have the right to their value for the use for hich the ould #ring
the most in the mar:et at the time the same ere ta:en from them. 3he most important issue to #e
resolved in the present case relates to the 9uestion of hat is the +ust compensation that should #e
paid to the appellees.
3he "epu#lic asserts that the fair mar:et value of the lands of the appellees is P.2< per s9uare
meter. 3he "epu#lic cites the case of Republic vs. (arciso' et al ., /-6(';, hich this Court decided
on )a 1=, 1'(6. 3he Narciso case involved lands that #elonged to Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un, and
to one >onata )ontemaor, hich ere e!propriated # the "epu#lic in 1';' and hich are no the
site of the 0asa Air 0ase. In the Narciso case this Court fi!ed the fair mar:et value at P.2< per
s9uare meter. 3he lands that are sought to #e e!propriated in the present case #eing contiguous to
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 14/22
the lands involved in the Narciso case, it is the stand of the "epu#lic that the price that should #e
fi!ed for the lands no in 9uestion should also #e at P.2< per s9uare meter.
7e can not sustain the stand of the "epu#lic. 7e find that the price of P.2< per s9uare meter, as
fi!ed # this Court in the Narciso case, as #ased on the allegation of the defendants $oners% in
their anser to the complaint for eminent domain in that case that the price of their lands asP2,<<<.<< per hectare and that as the price that the as:ed the court to pa them. 3his Court said,
then, that the oners of the land could not #e given more than hat the had as:ed, notithstanding
the recommendation of the ma+orit of the Commission on Appraisal D hich as adopted # the
trial court D that the fair mar:et value of the lands as P,<<<.<< per hectare. 7e also find that the
price of P.2< per s9uare meter in the Narciso case as considered the fair mar:et value of the lands
as of the ear 1';' hen the e!propriation proceedings ere instituted, and at that time the lands
ere classified as sugar lands, and assessed for ta!ation purposes at around P;<<.<< per hectare,
or P.<; per s9uare meter. 22 7hile the lands involved in the present case, li:e the lands involved in
the Narciso case, might have a fair mar:et value of P.2< per s9uare meter in 1';', it can not #e
denied that ten ears later, in 1'(', hen the present proceedings ere instituted, the value of those
lands had increased considera#l. 3he evidence shos that since 1';' those lands ere no longercultivated as sugar lands, and in 1'(' those lands ere alread classified, and assessed for ta!ation
purposes, as residential lands. In 1'(' the land of Castellvi as assessed at P1.<< per s9uare
meter. 2&
3he "epu#lic also points out that the Provincial Appraisal Committee of Pampanga, in its resolution
No. ( of Fe#ruar 1(, 1'(8 $!hi#it >%, recommended the sum of P.2< per s9uare meter as the fair
valuation of the Castellvi propert. 7e find that this resolution as made # the "epu#lic the #asis in
as:ing the court to fi! the provisional value of the lands sought to #e e!propriated at P2(',66'.1<,
hich as approved # the court. 24 It must #e considered, hoever, that the amount fi!ed as the
provisional value of the lands that are #eing e!propriated does not necessaril represent the true and
correct value of the land. 3he value is onl @provisional@ or @tentative@, to serve as the #asis for the
immediate occupanc of the propert #eing e!propriated # the condemnor. 3he records sho that this
resolution No. ( as repealed # the same Provincial Committee on Appraisal in its resolution No. 1< of
)a 1;, 1'(' $!hi#it 1-Castellvi%. In that resolution No. 1<, the appraisal committee stated that @3he
Committee has o#served that the value of the land in this localit has increased since 1'(8 ...@, and
recommended the price of P1.(< per s9uare meter. It follos, therefore, that, contrar to the stand of the
"epu#lic, that resolution No. ( of the Provincial Appraisal Committee can not #e made the #asis for fi!ing
the fair mar:et value of the lands of Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un.
3he "epu#lic further relied on the certification of the Acting Assistant Provincial Assessor of
Pampanga, dated Fe#ruar =, 1'61 $!hi#it O%, to the effect that in 1'(< the lands of 3oledo-4o5un
ere classified partl as sugar land and partl as ur#an land, and that the sugar land as assessed
at P.;< per s9uare meter, hile part of the ur#an land as assessed at P.;< per s9uare meter andpart at P.2< per s9uare meter and that in 1'(6 the Castellvi land as classified as sugar land and
as assessed at P;(<.<< per hectare, or P.<;( per s9uare meter. 7e can not also consider this
certification of the Acting Assistant Provincial Assessor as a #asis for fi!ing the fair mar:et value of
the lands of Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un #ecause, as the evidence shos, the lands in 9uestion, in
1'(8, ere alread classified and assessed for ta!ation purposes as residential lands. 3he
certification of the assessor refers to the ear 1'(< as far as the lands of 3oledo-4o5un are
concerned, and to the ear 1'(6 as far as the land of Castellvi is concerned. )oreover, this Court
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 15/22
has held that the valuation fi!ed for the purposes of the assessment of the land for ta!ation purposes
can not #ind the landoner here the latter did not intervene in fi!ing it. 25
?n the other hand, the Commissioners, appointed # the court to appraise the lands that ere #eing
e!propriated, recommended to the court that the price of P1<.<< per s9uare meter ould #e the fair
mar:et value of the lands. 3he commissioners made their recommendation on the #asis of theiro#servation after several ocular inspections of the lands, of their on personal :noledge of land
values in the province of Pampanga, of the testimonies of the oners of the land, and other
itnesses, and of documentar evidence presented # the appellees. 0oth Castellvi and 3oledo-
4o5un testified that the fair mar:et value of their respective land as at P1(.<< per s9uare meter.
3he documentar evidence considered # the commissioners consisted of deeds of sale of
residential lands in the ton of an Fernando and in Angeles Cit, in the province of Pampanga,
hich ere sold at prices ranging from P=.<< to P2<.<< per s9uare meter $!hi#its 1(, 16, 18, 1=,
1', 2<, 21, 22, 2-Castellvi%. 3he commissioners also considered the decision in Civil Case No. 1(1
of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, entitled "epu#lic vs. a#ina 3a#lante, hich as
e!propriation case filed on &anuar 1, 1'(', involving a parcel of land ad+acent to the Clar: Air
0ase in Angeles Cit, here the court fi!ed the price at P1=.<< per s9uare meter $!hi#it 1;-Castellvi%. In their report, the commissioners, among other things, said
... 3his e!propriation case is speciall pointed out, #ecause the circumstances and
factors involved therein are similar in man respects to the defendantsB lands in this
case. 3he land in Civil Case No. 1(1 of this Court and the lands in the present case
$Civil Case No. 162% are #oth near the air #ases, the Clar: Air 0ase and the 0asa
Air 0ase respectivel. 3here is a national road fronting them and are situated in a
first-class municipalit. As added advantage it ma #e said that the 0asa Air 0ase
land is ver near the sugar mill at >el Carmen, Florida#lanca, Pampanga, oned #
the Pampanga ugar )ills. Also +ust stoneBs thro aa from the same lands is a
#eautiful vacation spot at Palacol, a sitio of the ton of Florida#lanca, hich countsith a natural simming pool for vacationists on ee:ends. 3hese advantages are
not found in the case of the Clar: Air 0ase. 3he defendantsB lands are nearer to the
po#lacion of Florida#lanca then Clar: Air 0ase is nearer $sic% to the po#lacion of
Angeles, Pampanga.
3he deeds of a#solute sale, according to the undersigned commissioners, as ell as
the land in Civil Case No. 1(1 are competent evidence, #ecause the ere
e!ecuted during the ear 1'(' and #efore August 1< of the same ear. )ore
specificall so the land at Clar: Air 0ase hich coincidentall is the su#+ect matter in
the complaint in said Civil Case No. 1(1, it having #een filed on &anuar 1, 1'('
and the ta:ing of the land involved therein as ordered # the Court of First Instanceof Pampanga on &anuar 1(, 1'(', several months #efore the lands in this case
ere ta:en # the plaintiffs ....
From the a#ove and considering further that the loest as ell as the highest price
per s9uare meter o#taina#le in the mar:et of Pampanga relative to su#division lots
ithin its +urisdiction in the ear 1'(' is ver ell :non # the Commissioners, the
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 16/22
Commission finds that the loest price that can #e aarded to the lands in 9uestion
is P1<.<< per s9uare meter. 26
3he loer court did not altogether accept the findings of the Commissioners #ased on the
documentar evidence, #ut it considered the documentar evidence as #asis for comparison in
determining land values. 3he loer court arrived at the conclusion that @the unanimousrecommendation of the commissioners of ten $P1<.<<% pesos per s9uare meter for the three lots of
the defendants su#+ect of this action is fair and +ust@. 27 In arriving at its conclusion, the loer court too:
into consideration, among other circumstances, that the lands are titled, that there is a rising trend of land
values, and the loered purchasing poer of the Philippine peso.
In the case of Manila Railroad Co. vs. Cali$sihan, ;< Phil. 26, 2=, this Court said
A court of first instance or, on appeal, the upreme Court, ma change or modif the
report of the commissioners # increasing or reducing the amount of the aard if the
facts of the case so +ustif. 7hile great eight is attached to the report of the
commissioners, et a court ma su#stitute therefor its estimate of the value of the
propert as gathered from the record in certain cases, as, here the commissioners
have applied illegal principles to the evidence su#mitted to them, or here the have
disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence, or here the amount alloed is
either palpa#l inade9uate or e!cessive. 2'
3he report of the commissioners of appraisal in condemnation proceedings are not #inding, #ut
merel advisor in character, as far as the court is concerned. 29 In our analsis of the report of the
commissioners, 7e find points that merit serious consideration in the determination of the +ust
compensation that should #e paid to Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un for their lands. It should #e noted that
the commissioners had made ocular inspections of the lands and had considered the nature and
similarities of said lands in relation to the lands in other places in the province of Pampanga, li:e an
Fernando and Angeles Cit. 7e cannot disregard the o#servations of the commissioners regarding the
circumstances that ma:e the lands in 9uestion suited for residential purposes D their location near the
0asa Air 0ase, +ust li:e the lands in Angeles Cit that are near the Clar: Air 0ase, and the facilities that
o#tain #ecause of their nearness to the #ig sugar central of the Pampanga ugar mills, and to the
flourishing first class ton of Florida#lanca. It is true that the lands in 9uestion are not in the territor of
an Fernando and Angeles Cit, #ut, considering the facilities of modern communications, the ton of
Florida#lanca ma #e considered practicall ad+acent to an Fernando and Angeles Cit. It is not out of
place, therefore, to compare the land values in Florida#lanca to the land values in an Fernando and
Angeles Cit, and form an idea of the value of the lands in Florida#lanca ith reference to the land values
in those to other communities.
3he important factor in e!propriation proceeding is that the oner is aarded the +ust compensationfor his propert. 7e have carefull studied the record, and the evidence, in this case, and after
considering the circumstances attending the lands in 9uestion 7e have arrived at the conclusion
that the price of P1<.<< per s9uare meter, as recommended # the commissioners and adopted #
the loer court, is 9uite high. It is ?ur considered vie that the price of P(.<< per s9uare meter
ould #e a fair valuation of the lands in 9uestion and ould constitute a +ust compensation to the
oners thereof. In arriving at this conclusion 7e have particularl ta:en into consideration the
resolution of the Provincial Committee on Appraisal of the province of Pampanga informing, among
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 17/22
others, that in the ear 1'(' the land of Castellvi could #e sold for from P.<< to P;.<< per s9uare
meter, hile the land of 3oledo-4o5un could #e sold for from P2.(< to P.<< per s9uare meter. 3he
Court has eighed all the circumstances relating to this e!propriations proceedings, and in fi!ing the
price of the lands that are #eing e!propriated the Court arrived at a happ medium #eteen the price
as recommended # the commissioners and approved # the court, and the price advocated # the
"epu#lic. 3his Court has also ta:en +udicial notice of the fact that the value of the Philippine pesohas considera#l gone don since the ear 1'('. &0Considering that the lands of Castellvi and 3oledo-
4o5un are ad+oining each other, and are of the same nature, the Court has deemed it proper to fi! the
same price for all these lands.
. 3he third issue raised # the "epu#lic relates to the pament of interest. 3he
"epu#lic maintains that the loer court erred hen it ordered the "epu#lic to pa
Castellvi interest at the rate of 6 per annum on the total amount ad+udged as the
value of the land of Castellvi, from &ul 1, 1'(6 to &ul 1<, 1'('. 7e find merit in this
assignment of error.
In ordering the "epu#lic to pa 6 interest on the total value of the land of Castellvi from &ul 1,
1'(6 to &ul 1<, 1'(', the loer court held that the "epu#lic had illegall possessed the land of
Castellvi from &ul 1, 1'(6, after its lease of the land had e!pired on &une <, 1'(6, until August 1<,
1'(' hen the "epu#lic as placed in possession of the land pursuant to the rit of possession
issued # the court. 7hat reall happened as that the "epu#lic continued to occup the land of
Castellvi after the e!piration of its lease on &une <, 1'(6, so much so that Castellvi filed an
e+ectment case against the "epu#lic in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. &1 Eoever, hile
that e+ectment case as pending, the "epu#lic filed the complaint for eminent domain in the present case
and as placed in possession of the land on August 1<, 1'(', and #ecause of the institution of the
e!propriation proceedings the e+ectment case as later dismissed. In the order dismissing the e+ectment
case, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga said
Plaintiff has agreed, as a matter of fact has alread signed an agreement ith
defendants, here# she had agreed to receive the rent of the lands, su#+ect matter
of the instant case from &une <, 1'(6 up to 1'(' hen the Philippine Air Force as
placed in possession # virtue of an order of the Court upon depositing the
provisional amount as fi!ed # the Provincial Appraisal Committee ith the Provincial
3reasurer of
Pampanga ...
If Castellvi had agreed to receive the rentals from &une <, 1'(6 to August 1<, 1'(', she should #e
considered as having alloed her land to #e leased to the "epu#lic until August 1<, 1'(', and she
could not at the same time #e entitled to the pament of interest during the same period on the
amount aarded her as the +ust compensation of her land. 3he "epu#lic, therefore, should pa
Castellvi interest at the rate of 6 per annum on the value of her land, minus the provisional value
that as deposited, onl from &ul 1<, 1'(' hen it deposited in court the provisional value of the
land.
;. 3he fourth error assigned # the "epu#lic relates to the denial # the loer court of its motion for
a ne trial #ased on nearl discovered evidence. 7e do not find merit in this assignment of error.
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 18/22
After the loer court had decided this case on )a 26, 1'61, the "epu#lic filed a motion for a ne
trial, supplemented # another motion, #oth #ased upon the ground of nel discovered evidence.
3he alleged nel discovered evidence in the motion filed on &une 21, 1'61 as a deed of a#solute
sale-e!ecuted on &anuar 2(, 1'61, shoing that a certain erafin Francisco had sold to Pa#lo /.
Narciso a parcel of sugar land having an area of 1<<,<<< s9uare meters ith a sugar 9uota of 1<<
piculs, covered # P.A. No. 18<1, situated in 0arrio Fortuna, Florida#lanca, for P1;,<<<, or P.1; pers9uare meter.
In the supplemental motion, the alleged nel discovered evidence ere $1% a deed of sale of some
(,<<< s9uare meters of land situated at Florida#lanca for P8,(<<.<< $or a#out P.21 per s9uare
meter% e!ecuted in &ul, 1'(', # the spouses veln >. /aird and Cornelio 4. /aird in favor of
spouses 0ienvenido . Aguas and &osefina . Aguas and $2% a deed of a#solute sale of a parcel of
land having an area of ;,12<,1<1 s9uare meters, including the sugar 9uota covered # Plantation
Audit No. 161 1;(, situated at Florida#lanca, Pampanga, for P=6<.<< per hectare $a little less than
P.<' per s9uare meter% e!ecuted on ?cto#er 22, 1'(8 # &esus 3oledo )endo5a in favor of the
/and 3enure Administration.
7e find that the loer court acted correctl hen it denied the motions for a ne trial.
3o arrant the granting of a ne trial #ased on the ground of nel discovered evidence, it must
appear that the evidence as discovered after the trial that even ith the e!ercise of due diligence,
the evidence could not have #een discovered and produced at the trial and that the evidence is of
such a nature as to alter the result of the case if admitted. &2 3he loer court correctl ruled that these
re9uisites ere not complied ith.
3he loer court, in a ell-reasoned order, found that the sales made # erafin Francisco to Pa#lo
Narciso and that made # &esus 3oledo to the /and 3enure Administration ere immaterial and
irrelevant, #ecause those sales covered sugarlands ith sugar 9uotas, hile the lands sought to #ee!propriated in the instant case are residential lands. 3he loer court also concluded that the land
sold # the spouses /aird to the spouses Aguas as a sugar land.
7e agree ith the trial court. In eminent domain proceedings, in order that evidence as to the sale
price of other lands ma #e admitted in evidence to prove the fair mar:et value of the land sought to
#e e!propriated, the lands must, among other things, #e shon to #e similar.
0ut even assuming, $ratia ar$uenti , that the lands mentioned in those deeds of sale ere
residential, the evidence ould still not arrant the grant of a ne trial, for said evidence could have
#een discovered and produced at the trial, and the cannot #e considered nel discovered
evidence as contemplated in ection 1$#% of "ule 8 of the "ules of Court. "egarding this point, thetrial court said
3he Court ill no sho that there as no reasona#le diligence emploed.
3he land descri#ed in the deed of sale e!ecuted # erafin Francisco, cop of hich
is attached to the original motion, is covered # a Certificate of 3itle issued # the
?ffice of the "egister of >eeds of Pampanga. 3here is no 9uestion in the mind of the
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 19/22
court #ut this document passed through the ?ffice of the "egister of >eeds for the
purpose of transferring the title or annotating the sale on the certificate of title. It is
true that Fiscal /agman ent to the ?ffice of the "egister of >eeds to chec:
conveances hich ma #e presented in the evidence in this case as it is no
sought to #e done # virtue of the motions at #ar, Fiscal /agman, one of the laers
of the plaintiff, did not e!ercise reasona#le diligence as re9uired # the rules. 3heassertion that he onl ent to the office of the "egister of >eeds Bno and thenB to
chec: the records in that office onl shos the half-ha5ard JsicK manner # hich the
plaintiff loo:ed for evidence to #e presented during the hearing #efore the
Commissioners, if it is at all true that Fiscal /agman did hat he is supposed to have
done according to olicitor Padua. It ould have #een the easiest matter for plaintiff
to move for the issuance of a su#poena duces tecu directing the "egister of >eeds
of Pampanga to come to testif and to #ring ith him all documents found in his
office pertaining to sales of land in Florida#lanca ad+acent to or near the lands in
9uestion e!ecuted or recorded from 1'(= to the present. ven this elementar
precaution as not done # plaintiffBs numerous attornes.
3he same can #e said of the deeds of sale attached to the supplementar motion.
3he refer to lands covered # certificate of title issued # the "egister of >eeds of
Pampanga. For the same reason the could have #een easil discovered if
reasona#le diligence has #een e!erted # the numerous laers of the plaintiff in this
case. It is noteorth that all these deeds of sale could #e found in several
government offices, namel, in the ?ffice of the "egister of >eeds of Pampanga, the
?ffice of the Provincial Assessor of Pampanga, the ?ffice of the Cler: of Court as a
part of notarial reports of notaries pu#lic that ac:noledged these documents, or in
the archives of the National /i#rar. In respect to Anne! B0B of the supplementar
motion cop of the document could also #e found in the ?ffice of the /and 3enure
Administration, another government entit. An laer ith a modicum of a#ilithandling this e!propriation case ould have right aa though JsicK of digging up
documents diligentl shoing conveances of lands near or around the parcels of
land sought to #e e!propriated in this case in the offices that ould have naturall
come to his mind such as the offices mentioned a#ove, and had counsel for the
movant reall e!ercised the reasona#le diligence re9uired # the "uleB undou#tedl
the ould have #een a#le to find these documents andor caused the issuance of
su#poena duces tecum. ...
It is also recalled that during the hearing #efore the Court of the "eport and
"ecommendation of the Commissioners and o#+ection thereto, olicitor Padua made
the o#servation
I understand, our Eonor, that there as a sale that too: place in this place of land
recentl here the land as sold for P<.2< hich is contiguous to this land.
3he Court gave him permission to su#mit said document su#+ect to the approval of
the Court. ... 3his as #efore the decision as rendered, and later promulgated on
)a 26, 1'61 or ore than one onth after olicitor Padua made the a#ove
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 20/22
o#servation. Ee could have, therefore, chec:ed up the alleged sale and moved for a
reopening to adduce further evidence. Ee did not do so. Ee forgot to present the
evidence at a more propitious time. No, he see:s to introduce said evidence under
the guise of nel-discovered evidence. Gnfortunatel the Court cannot classif it as
nel-discovered evidence, #ecause tinder the circumstances, the correct
9ualification that can #e given is Bforgotten evidenceB. Forgotten hoever, is notnel-discovered
evidence. &&
3he granting or denial of a motion for ne trial is, as a general rule, discretionar ith the trial court,
hose +udgment should not #e distur#ed unless there is a clear shoing of a#use of discretion. &4 7e
do not see an a#use of discretion on the part of the loer court hen it denied the motions for a ne
trial.
7E"F?", the decision appealed from is modified, as follos
$a% the lands of appellees Carmen *da. de Castellvi and )aria Nieves 3oledo-4o5un,
as descri#ed in the complaint, are declared e!propriated for pu#lic use
$#% the fair mar:et value of the lands of the appellees is fi!ed at P(.<< per s9uare
meter
$c% the "epu#lic must pa appellee Castellvi the sum of P,8'6,;'(.<< as +ust
compensation for her one parcel of land that has an area of 8(',2'' s9uare meters,
minus the sum of P1(1,=('.=< that she ithdre out of the amount that as
deposited in court as the provisional value of the land, ith interest at the rate of 6
per annum from &ul 1<, 1'(' until the da full pament is made or deposited in
court
$d% the "epu#lic must pa appellee 3oledo-4o5un the sum of P2,6'(,22(.<< as the
+ust compensation for her to parcels of land that have a total area of (',<;(
s9uare meters, minus the sum of P1<8,=<'.<< that she ithdre out of the amount
that as deposited in court as the provisional value of her lands, ith interest at the
rate of 6, per annum from &ul 1<, 1'(' until the da full pament is made or
deposited in court $e% the attorneBs lien of Att. Al#erto Cacnio is enforced and
$f% the costs should #e paid # appellant "epu#lic of the Philippines, as provided in
ection 12, "ule 68, and in ection 1, "ule 1;1, of the "ules of Court.
I3 I ? ?">">.
Ma)alintal' C.*.' +arredo' Antonio' ,s$uerra' ernandez' Muoz /ala and Aquino' **.' concur.
Castro' ernando' !eehan)ee and Ma)asiar' **.' too) no part.
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 21/22
Foot(ot)s
1 "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I, pp. (-(6.
2 "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I, pp. (-(6.
"ecord on Appeal, *ol. I, pp. 121-12;.
; "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I, pp. 2(-261.
( "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I, pp. 26;-28<, 2=;-2'8 and 2'8-2''.
6 "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I, pp. =8-;(6.
8 AppellantBs #rief, pp. 1=-< citing the case of Penn. vs. Carolina *irginia state
Corp., (8 2d =18.
= Appellee CastellviBs #rief, pp. 21-26.
' Appellee 3oledo-4o5unBs #rief, pp. 8-'. 3he issue raised in the second error
assigned should reall refer onl to the land of Castellvi. 7e find that the lands of
3oledo-4o5un, unli:e the land of Castellvi, ere never leased to the "epu#lic.
1< AppellantBs #rief, pp. 6-12.
11 AppellantBs #rief, p. 12.
12 "ecord on Appeal, *ol. II, pp. ;62-;6.
1 Among the cases cited under this ection is that of Penn. vs. Carolina *irginia
Coastal Corporation, (8 2d =18, hich is cited # the "epu#lic on p. 1= of its
#rief.
1; ee AppellantBs #rief, p. 6.
1( ee AppellantBs #rief, p. 22.
16 imilar to ection (, "ule 6' of the old "ules of Court, the rule in force hen the
complaint in this case as filed.
18 Oing vs. )ineapolis Gnion "aila Co., 2 )inn. 22;.
1= /ittle "oc: &unction ". vs. 7oodruff, ;' Ar:. =1 ( 7 8'2.
1' 28 Am. &ur. 2d pp. ;;-;( "othnam vs. Commonealth, ;<6 Pa. 86 7ichita
Falls and N.7. ". Co. vs. Eolloman, 2= ?:la. ;1', 11; P 8<<, 8<1. ee also
8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 22/22
"epu#lic vs. *enturan5a, et al.,
/-2<;18, )a <,1'66, 18 C"A 22, 1.
2< >ecision of the loer court pp. ;;;-;;(, "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I.
21 >ecision of the loer court, pp. ;;6-;;', "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I.
22 >ecision in the Narciso case, !hi#it E for the "epu#lic.
2 ee page ;81, "ecord on Appeal, *ol. II, and page ;1, AppellantBs 0rief.
2; Page 1<-16, "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I.
2( "epu#lic of the Philippines vs. Grtula, 11< Phil. 262-26;.
26 "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I, pages 2(8-26<.
28 /oer courtBs decision, p. ;(;, "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I.
2= ee also )anila "ailroad Compan vs. *elas9ue5, 2 Phil. 2=6 and Cit of
)anila vs. strada, 2( Phil. 2<=.
2' Cit of Ce#u vs. /edesma, 1; C"A 666, 66'.
< In 1'(' the mone value of to pesos $P2.<<%, Philippine currenc, as e9ual to
one G.. dollar $1.<<%. As pu#lished in the @>ail !press@ of August 6, 1'8;, the
Philippine National 0an: announced that the inter-#an: guiding rate as P6.8( to
one G.. dollar $1,<<%.
1 Civil Case No. 1(;=.
2 ec. 1 $#% of "ule 8 of the "ules of Court.
"ecord on Appeal, *ol. 11, pp. 6<8-61.
; )iranda vs. /egaspi, et al., '2 Phil. 2'<, 2'-2';.