9/19/2016

G.R. No. 172410

THIRDDIVISION

REPUBLIC
OF
THE
G.R.No.172410
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED

BY THE TOLL REGULATORY

Present:
BOARD(TRB),

Petitioner,
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.,

Chairperson,

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,

CHICONAZARIO,
versus
REYES,and

DECASTRO,*JJ.

HOLY
TRINITY
REALTY
Promulgated:
DEVELOPMENTCORP.,

Respondent.
April14,2008
xx

DECISION

CHICONAZARIO,J.:

ThisisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,seeking
[1]
tosetasidetheDecision dated21April2006oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.
[2]
[3]
[4]
90981which,inturn,setasidetwoOrders dated7February2005 and16May2005 of
theRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofMalolos,Bulacan,inCivilCaseNo.869M2000.

Theundisputedfactualandproceduralantecedentsofthiscaseareasfollows:

On 29 December 2000, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Toll

Regulatory Board (TRB), filed with the RTC a Consolidated Complaint for Expropriation
againstlandownerswhosepropertieswouldbeaffectedbytheconstruction,rehabilitationand
expansionoftheNorthLuzonExpressway. The suit was docketed as Civil Case No. 869M
2000 and raffled to Branch 85, Malolos, Bulacan. Respondent Holy Trinity Realty and
DevelopmentCorporation(HTRDC)wasoneoftheaffectedlandowners.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172410.htm

1/12

9/19/2016

G.R. No. 172410

On18March2002,TRBfiledanUrgentExParteMotionfortheissuanceofaWritof
Possession,manifestingthatitdepositedasufficientamounttocoverthepaymentof100%of
thezonalvalueoftheaffectedproperties,inthetotalamountofP28,406,700.00,withtheLand
BankofthePhilippines,SouthHarborBranch(LBPSouthHarbor),anauthorizedgovernment
depository.TRBmaintainedthatsinceithadalreadycompliedwiththeprovisionsofSection4
[5]
of Republic Act No. 8974 in relation to Section 2 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the
issuanceofthewritofpossessionbecomesministerialonthepartoftheRTC.

TheRTCissued,on19March2002,anOrderfortheIssuanceofaWritofPossession,as
wellastheWritofPossessionitself.HTRDCthereaftermovedforthereconsiderationofthe19
March2002OrderoftheRTC.

On 7 October 2002, the Sheriff filed with the RTC a Report on Writ of Possession
stating,amongotherthings,thatsincenoneofthelandownersvoluntarilyvacatedtheproperties
subjectoftheexpropriationproceedings,theassistanceofthePhilippineNationalPolice(PNP)
would be necessary in implementing the Writ of Possession. Accordingly, TRB, through the
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG),filedwiththeRTCanOmnibusMotionprayingforan
OrderdirectingthePNPtoassisttheSheriffintheimplementationoftheWritofPossession.
On15November2002,theRTCissuedanOrderdirectingthelandownerstofiletheircomment
onTRBsOmnibusMotion.

On3March2003,HTRDCfiledwiththeRTCaMotiontoWithdrawDeposit,praying
thattherespondentoritsdulyauthorizedrepresentativebeallowedtowithdrawtheamountof
P22,968,000.00, out of TRBs advance deposit of P28,406,700.00 with LBPSouth Harbor,
includingtheinterestwhichaccruedthereon.Actingonsaidmotion,theRTCissuedanOrder
dated21April2003,directingthemanagerofLBPSouthHarbortoreleaseinfavorofHTRDC
theamountofP22,968,000.00 since the latter already proved its absolute ownership over the
subject properties and paid the taxes due thereon to the government. According to the RTC,
(t)heissuehoweverontheinterestearnedbytheamountdepositedinthebank,ifthereisany,
[6]
shouldstillbethreshedout.

On 7 May 2003, the RTC conducted a hearing on the accrued interest, after which, it
directed the issuance of an order of expropriation, and granted TRB a period of 30 days to
inquirefromLBPSouthHarborwhetherthedepositmadebyDPWHwithsaidbankrelativeto
[7]
theseexpropriationproceedingsisearninginterestornot.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172410.htm

2/12

9/19/2016

G.R. No. 172410

TheRTCissuedanOrder,on6August2003,directingtheappearanceofLBPAssistant
VicePresidentAtty.RosemarieM.OsoteoandDepartmentManagerElizabethCruztotestify
on whether the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWHs) expropriation account
withthebankwasearninginterest.On9October2003,TRBinsteadsubmittedaManifestation
to which was attached a letter dated 19August 2003 by Atty. Osoteo stating that the DPWH
ExpropriationAccountwasaninterestbearingcurrentaccount.

On11March2004,theRTCissuedanOrderresolvingasfollowstheissueofownership
oftheinterestthathadaccruedontheamountdepositedbyDPWHinitsexpropriationcurrent
accountwithLBPSouthHarbor:

WHEREFORE,theinterestearningsfromthedepositofP22,968,000.00respectingone
hundred (100%) percent of the zonal value of the affected properties in this expropriation
proceedingsundertheprincipleofaccessionareconsideredasfruitsandshouldproperlypertain
tothehereindefendant/propertyowner[HTRDC].Accordingly,theLandBankasthedepositary
bankinthisexpropriationproceedingsis(1)directedtomakethenecessarycomputationofthe
accruedinterestoftheamountofP22,968,000.00fromthetimeitwasdepositeduptothetimeit
was released to Holy Trinity Realty and Development Corp. and thereafter (2) to release the
same to the defendant Holy Trinity Development Corporation through its authorized
[8]
representative.

TRBfiledaMotionforReconsiderationoftheaforequotedRTCOrder,contendingthat
thepaymentofinterestonmoneydepositedand/orconsignedforthepurposeofsecuringawrit
ofpossessionwassanctionedneitherbylawnorbyjurisprudence.

TRBfiledaMotiontoImplementOrderdated7May2003,whichdirectedtheissuance
ofanorderofexpropriation.On5November2004,theRTCissuedanOrderofExpropriation.

On7February2005, the RTC likewise granted TRBs Motion for Reconsideration. The
RTCruledthattheissueastowhetherornotHTRDCisentitledtopaymentofinterestshould
be ventilated before the Board of Commissioners which will be created later for the
determinationofjustcompensation.

NowitwasHTRDCsturntofileaMotionforReconsiderationofthelatestOrderofthe
RTC. The RTC, however, denied HTRDCs Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated 16
May2005.

HTRDC sought recourse with the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari,
docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.90981.InitsDecision,promulgatedon21April2006,theCourt
of Appeals vacated the Orders dated 7 February 2005 and 16 May 2005 of the RTC, and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172410.htm

3/12

9/19/2016

G.R. No. 172410

reinstatedtheOrderdated11March2004ofthesaidtrialcourtwhereinitruledthattheinterest
which accrued on the amount deposited in the expropriation account belongs to HTRDC by
virtueofaccession.TheCourtofAppealsthusdeclared:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the assailed Orders dated 07

February and 16 May 2005 respectively of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan
(Branch 85) are hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Order dated 11 March
[9]
2004isherebyreinstated.

Fromtheforegoing,theRepublic,representedbytheTRB,filedthepresentPetitionfor
Review on Certiorari, steadfast in its stance that HTRDC is entitled only to an amount
[10]
equivalenttothezonalvalueoftheexpropriatedproperty,nothingmoreandnothingless.
According to the TRB, the owner of the subject properties is entitled to an exact amount as
clearlydefinedinbothSection4ofRepublicActNo.8974,whichreads:

Section4.GuidelinesforExpropriationProceedings.Wheneveritisnecessarytoacquire
real property for the rightofway, site or location for any national government infrastructure
project through expropriation, the appropriate implementing agency shall initiate the
expropriationproceedingsbeforethepropercourtunderthefollowingguidelines:

(a) Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the defendant, the
implementingagencyshallimmediatelypaytheownerofthepropertytheamountequivalent
to the sum of (1) one hundred (100%) percent of the value of the property based on the
currentrelevantzonalvaluationoftheBureauofInternalRevenue(BIR)and(2)thevalue
oftheimprovementsand/orstructuresasdeterminedunderSection7hereof.

andSection2,Rule67oftheRulesofCourt,whichprovides:

Sec.2.Entryofplaintiffupondepositingvaluewithauthorizedgovernmentdepositary.
Uponthefilingofthecomplaintoratanytimethereafterandafterduenoticetothedefendant,
the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real property
involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to
theassessedvalueofthepropertyforpurposesoftaxationtobeheldbysuchbanksubjectto
the orders of the court. Such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the court
authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a government bank of the Republic of the
Philippinespayableondemandtotheauthorizedgovernmentdepositary.

[11]
The TRB reminds us that there are two stages
in expropriation proceedings, the
determination of the authority to exercise eminent domain and the determination of just
compensation. The TRB argues that it is only during the second stage when the court will
appointcommissionersanddetermineclaimsforentitlementtointerest,citingLandBankofthe
[12]
[13]
Philippinesv.Wycoco
andNationalPowerCorporationv.Angas.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172410.htm

4/12

9/19/2016

G.R. No. 172410

TheTRBfurtherpointsoutthattheexpropriationaccountwithLBPSouthHarborisnot
in the name of HTRDC, but of DPWH. Thus, the said expropriation account includes the
compensationfortheotherlandownersnameddefendantsinCivilCaseNo.869M2000,and
doesnotexclusivelybelongtorespondent.

Attheoutset,wecallattentiontoasignificantoversightintheTRBslineofreasoning.It
failed to distinguish between the expropriation procedures under Republic Act No. 8974 and
Rule67oftheRulesofCourt.RepublicActNo.8974andRule67oftheRulesofCourtspeak
of different procedures, with the former specifically governing expropriation proceedings for
[14]
nationalgovernmentinfrastructureprojects.Thus,inRepublicv.Gingoyon,
weheld:

ThereareatleasttwocrucialdifferencesbetweentherespectiveproceduresunderRep.
Act No. 8974 and Rule 67. Under the statute, the Government is required to make
immediatepaymenttothepropertyowneruponthefilingofthecomplainttobeentitledto
a writ of possession, whereas in Rule 67, the Government is required only to make an
initialdepositwithanauthorizedgovernmentdepositary.Moreover,Rule67prescribesthat
theinitialdeposit beequivalentto theassessedvalue of the propertyforpurposesof taxation,
unlikeRep.ActNo.8974whichprovides,astherelevantstandardforinitialcompensation,the
market value of the property as stated in the tax declaration or the current relevant zonal
valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), whichever is higher, and the value of the
improvementsand/orstructuresusingthereplacementcostmethod.

xxxx

Rule 67 outlines the procedure under which eminent domain may be exercised by the
Government.Yetbynomeansdoesitserveatpresentasthesolitaryguidelinethroughwhichthe
Statemayexpropriateprivateproperty.Forexample,Section19oftheLocalGovernmentCode
governsastotheexercisebylocalgovernmentunitsofthepowerofeminentdomainthroughan
enabling ordinance. And then there is Rep. Act No. 8974, which covers expropriation
proceedingsintendedfornationalgovernmentinfrastructureprojects.

Rep. Act No. 8974, which provides for a procedure eminently more favorable to the
property owner than Rule 67, inescapably applies in instances when the national government
expropriates property for national government infrastructure projects. Thus, if expropriation is
engagedinbythenationalgovernmentforpurposesotherthannationalinfrastructureprojects,
theassessedvaluestandardandthedepositmodeprescribedinRule67continuestoapply.

There is no question that the proceedings in this case deal with the expropriation of
properties intended for a national government infrastructure project. Therefore, the RTC
correctlyappliedtheprocedurelaidoutinRepublicActNo.8974,byrequiringthedepositof
theamountequivalentto100%ofthezonalvalueofthepropertiessoughttobeexpropriated
beforetheissuanceofawritofpossessioninfavoroftheRepublic.

The controversy, though, arises not from the amount of the deposit, but as to the
ownershipoftheinterestthathadsinceaccruedonthedepositedamount.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172410.htm

5/12

9/19/2016

G.R. No. 172410

Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the interest earned by the
depositedamountintheexpropriationaccountwouldaccruetoHRTDCbyvirtueofaccession,
hinges on the determination of who actually owns the deposited amount, since, under Article
440 of the Civil Code, the right of accession is conferred by ownership of the principal
property:

Art.440.Theownershipofpropertygivestherightbyaccessiontoeverythingwhichis
producedthereby,orwhichisincorporatedorattachedthereto,eithernaturallyorartificially.

The principal property in the case at bar is part of the deposited amount in the
expropriation account of DPWH which pertains particularly to HTRDC. Such amount,
determinedtobeP22,968,000.00oftheP28,406,700.00totaldeposit,wasalreadyorderedby
the RTC to be released to HTRDC or its authorized representative. The Court of Appeals
furtherrecognizedthatthedepositoftheamountwasalreadydeemedaconstructivedelivery
thereoftoHTRDC:

When the [herein petitioner] TRB deposited the money as advance payment for the
expropriatedpropertywithanauthorizedgovernmentdepositarybankforpurposesofobtaining
awritofpossession,itisdeemedtobeaconstructivedeliveryoftheamountcorrespondingto
the100%zonalvaluationoftheexpropriatedproperty.Since [HTRDC] is entitled thereto and
undisputably the owner of the principal amount deposited by [herein petitioner] TRB,
conversely, the interest yield, as accession, in a bank deposit should likewise pertain to the

[15]

ownerofthemoneydeposited.

SincetheCourtofAppealsfoundthattheHTRDCistheownerofthedepositedamount,
thenthelattershouldalsobeentitledtotheinterestwhichaccruedthereon.

WeagreewiththeCourtofAppeals,andfindnomeritintheinstantPetition.
The deposit was made in order to comply with Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974,
whichrequiresnothinglessthantheimmediatepaymentof100%ofthevalueoftheproperty,
basedonthecurrentzonalvaluationoftheBIR,tothepropertyowner.Thus,goingbacktoour
[16]
rulinginRepublicv.Gingoyon
:

ItistheplainintentofRep.ActNo.8974tosupersedethesystemofdepositunderRule
67withtheschemeofimmediatepaymentincasesinvolvingnationalgovernmentinfrastructure
projects. The following portion of the Senate deliberations, cited by PIATCO in its
Memorandum,isworthquotingtocogitateonthepurposebehindtheplainmeaningofthelaw:

THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. CAYETANO). x x x Because the Senate

believes that, you know, we have to pay the landowners immediately not by
treasurybillsbutbycash.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172410.htm

6/12

9/19/2016

G.R. No. 172410

Sincewearedeprivingthem,youknow,uponpayment,no,ofpossession,
wemightaswellpaythemasmuch,no,hindilang50percent.

xxxx

THECHAIRMAN(REP.VERGARA).Accepted.

xxxx

THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. CAYETANO). Oo. Because this is really in

favorofthelandowners,e.

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. VERGARA). Thats why we need to really

securetheavailabilityoffunds.

xxxx

THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. CAYETANO). No, no. Its the same. It says
here:iyongfirstparagraph,diba?Iyongzonaltalagangmagbabayadmuna.In
other words, you know, there must be a payment kaagad. (TSN, Bicameral
Conference on the Disagreeing Provisions of House Bill 1422 and Senate Bill
2117,August29,2000,pp.1420)

xxxx

THECHAIRMAN(SEN.CAYETANO).Okay,okay,no.Unanguna,it
isnotdeposit,no.Itspayment.

REP.BATERINA.Itspayment,ho,payment.

Thecriticalfactorinthedifferentmodesofeffectingdeliverywhichgiveslegaleffectto
[17]
theactistheactualintentiontodeliveronthepartofthepartymakingsuchdelivery.
The
intentionoftheTRBindepositingsuchamountthroughDPWHwasclearlytocomplywiththe
requirementofimmediatepaymentinRepublicActNo.8974,sothatitcouldalreadysecurea
writ of possession over the properties subject of the expropriation and commence
implementation of the project. In fact, TRB did not object to HTRDCs Motion to Withdraw
DepositwiththeRTC,foraslongasHTRDCshows(1)thatthepropertyisfreefromanylien
[18]
orencumbranceand(2)thatrespondentistheabsoluteownerthereof.

A close scrutiny of TRBs arguments would further reveal that it does not directly
challenge the Court of Appeals determinative pronouncement that the interest earned by the
amountdepositedintheexpropriationaccountaccruestoHTRDCbyvirtueofaccession.TRB
only asserts that HTRDC is entitled only to an amount equivalent to the zonal value of the
expropriatedproperty,nothingmoreandnothingless.

We agree in TRBs statement since it is exactly how the amount of the immediate
paymentshallbedeterminedinaccordancewithSection4ofRepublicActNo.8974,i.e.,an
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172410.htm

7/12

9/19/2016

G.R. No. 172410

amount equivalent to 100% of the zonal value of the expropriated properties. However, TRB
alreadycompliedtherewithbydepositingtherequiredamountintheexpropriationaccountof
DPWHwithLBPSouthHarbor.Bydepositingthesaidamount,TRBisalreadyconsideredto
have paid the same to HTRDC, and HTRDC became the owner thereof. The amount earned
interestafterthedeposithence,theinterestshouldpertaintotheowneroftheprincipalwhois
alreadydeterminedasHTRDC.TheinterestispaidbyLBPSouthHarboronthedeposit,and
theTRBcannotclaimthatitpaidanamountmorethanwhatitisrequiredtodosobylaw.

Nonetheless, we find it necessary to emphasize that HTRDC is determined to be the

owner of only a part of the amount deposited in the expropriation account, in the sum of
P22,968,000.00.Hence,itisentitledbyrightofaccessiontotheinterestthathadaccruedtothe
saidamountonly.

We are not persuaded by TRBs citation of National Power Corporation v. Angas and
LandBankofthePhilippinesv.Wycoco,insupportofitsargumentthattheissueoninterestis
merelypartandparcelofthedeterminationofjustcompensationwhichshouldbedetermined
inthesecondstageoftheproceedingsonly.Wefindthatneithercaseisapplicableherein.

TheissueinAngasiswhetherornot,inthecomputationofthelegalrateofintereston
justcompensationforexpropriatedlands,theapplicablelawisArticle2209oftheCivilCode
which prescribes a 6% legal interest rate, or Central Bank Circular No. 416 which fixed the
legalrateat12%perannum.WeruledinAngasthatsincethekindofinterestinvolvedtherein
isinterestbywayofdamagesfordelayinthepaymentthereof,andnotasearningsfromloans
or forbearances of money, Article 2209 of the Civil Code prescribing the 6% interest shall
apply.InWycoco,ontheotherhand,weclarifiedthatinterestsintheformofdamagescannot
beappliedwherethereispromptandvalidpaymentofjustcompensation.

Thecaseatbar,however,doesnotinvolveinterestasdamagesfordelayinpaymentof
just compensation. It concerns interest earned by the amount deposited in the expropriation
account.

UnderSection4ofRepublicActNo.8974,theimplementingagencyofthegovernment
pays just compensation twice: (1) immediately upon the filing of the complaint, where the
amount to be paid is 100% of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal
valuation of the BIR (initial payment) and (2) when the decision of the court in the
determination of just compensation becomes final and executory, where the implementing

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172410.htm

8/12

9/19/2016

G.R. No. 172410

agency shall pay the owner the difference between the amount already paid and the just
[19]
compensationasdeterminedbythecourt(finalpayment).

HTRDCneverallegedthatitwasseekinginterestbecauseofdelayineitherofthetwo
payments enumerated above. In fact, HTRDCs cause of action is based on the prompt initial
paymentofjustcompensation,whicheffectivelytransferredtheownershipoftheamountpaid
toHTRDC.Beingtheowneroftheamountpaid,HTRDCisclaiming,bytherightofaccession,
theinterestearnedbythesamewhileondepositwiththebank.

ThattheexpropriationaccountwasinthenameofDPWH,andnotofHTRDC,isofno
moment.WequotewithapprovalthefollowingreasoningoftheCourtofAppeals:

Notwithstanding that the amount was deposited under the DPWH account, ownership
over the deposit transferred by operation of law to the [HTRDC] and whatever interest,
consideredascivilfruits,accruingtotheamountofPhp22,968,000.00shouldproperlypertainto
[HTRDC] as the lawful owner of the principal amount deposited following the principle of
accession.BankinterestpartakethenatureofcivilfruitsunderArt.442oftheNewCivilCode.
And since these are considered fruits, ownership thereof should be due to the owner of the
principal.Undoubtedly,beinganattributeofownership,the[HTRDCs]rightoverthefruits(jus
[20]
fruendi),thatisthebankinterests,mustberespected.

ConsideringthattheexpropriationaccountisinthenameofDPWH,then,DPWHshould
at most be deemed as the trustee of the amounts deposited in the said accounts irrefragably
intended as initial payment for the landowners of the properties subject of the expropriation,
untilsaidlandownersareallowedbytheRTCtowithdrawthesame.

As a final note, TRB does not object to HTRDCs withdrawal of the amount of
P22,968,000.00 from the expropriation account, provided that it is able to show (1) that the
[21]
propertyisfreefromanylienorencumbranceand(2)thatitistheabsoluteownerthereof.
The said conditions do not put in abeyance the constructive delivery of the said amount to
[22]
HTRDCpendingthelatterscompliancetherewith.Article1187
oftheCivilCodeprovides
thattheeffectsofaconditionalobligationtogive,oncetheconditionhasbeenfulfilled,shall
retroacttothedayoftheconstitutionoftheobligation.Hence,whenHTRDCcompliedwiththe
[23]
givenconditions,asdeterminedbytheRTCinitsOrder
dated21April2003,theeffectsof
the constructive delivery retroacted to the actual date of the deposit of the amount in the
expropriationaccountofDPWH.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172410.htm

9/12

9/19/2016

G.R. No. 172410

WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDENIED.TheCourtofAppealsDecisiondated21April
2006inCAG.R.SPNo.90981,whichsetasidethe7February2005and16May2005Orders
oftheRegionalTrialCourtofMalolos,Bulacan,isAFFIRMED.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZRUBENT.REYES
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecase
wasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172410.htm

10/12

9/19/2016

G.R. No. 172410

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
*JusticeTeresitaJ.LeonardoDeCastrowasdesignatedtositasadditionalmemberreplacingJusticeAntonioEduardoB.Nachura
perRaffledated26March2008.
[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeBienvenidoL.ReyeswithAssociateJusticesArturoD.BrionandArcangelitaM.RomillaLontok,
concurringrollo,pp.3239.
[2]
IssuedbyJudgeMa.BelenRingpisLiban.
[3]
Rollo,pp.155156.
[4]
Id.at164.
[5]
AN ACT TO FACILITATE THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHTOFWAY, SITE OR LOCATION FOR NATIONAL
GOVERNMENTINFRASTRUCTUREPROJECTSANDFOROTHERPURPOSES.
[6]
CArollo,p.146.
[7]
Id.at147.
[8]
Rollo,p.143.
[9]
Id.at3839.
[10]
Id.at314.
[11]
WeheldinHeirsofAlbertoSuguitanv.CityofMandaluyong,384Phil.676,691(2000)that:
Rule67ofthe1997RevisedRulesofCourtrevealsthatexpropriationproceedingsarecomprisedoftwostages:
(1)thefirstisconcernedwiththedeterminationoftheauthorityoftheplaintifftoexercisethepowerofeminent
domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit it ends with an order if not in a
dismissal of the action, of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be
condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be
determinedasofthedateofthefilingofthecomplaint
(2)thesecondphaseisconcernedwiththedeterminationbythecourtofthejustcompensationforthepropertysoughttobe
takenthisisdonebythecourtwiththeassistanceofnotmorethanthree(3)commissioners.
[12]
G.R.No.140160,13January2004,419SCRA67,80.
[13]
G.R.Nos.6022526,8May1992,208SCRA542.
[14]
G.R.No.166429,19December2005,478SCRA474,509515.

[15]
Rollo,p.37.
[16]
Supranote14at519520.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172410.htm

11/12

9/19/2016

G.R. No. 172410

[17]
UnionMotorCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,414Phil.33,43(2001).
[18]
CArollo,pp.141143.
[19]
The fourth paragraph of Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 8974 states: In the event that the owner of the property contests the
implementingagencysprofferedvalue,thecourtshalldeterminethejustcompensationtobepaidtheownerwithinsixty(60)
days from the date of filing of the expropriation case.When the decision of the court becomes final and executory, the
implementing agency shall pay the owner the difference between the amount already paid and the just compensation as
determinedbythecourt.
[20]
Rollo,p.37.
[21]
CArollo,pp.141143.
[22]
Art.1187.Theeffectsofaconditionalobligationtogive,oncetheconditionhasbeenfulfilled,shallretroacttothedayofthe
constitutionoftheobligation.Nevertheless,whentheobligationimposesreciprocalprestationsupontheparties,thefruits
andinterestsduringthependencyoftheconditionshallbedeemedtohavebeenmutuallycompensated.Iftheobligationis
unilateral, the debtor shall appropriate the fruits and interests received, unless from the nature and circumstances of the
obligationitshouldbeinferredthattheintentionofthepersonconstitutingthesamewasdifferent.
In obligations to do and not to do, the courts shall determine, in each case, the retroactive effect of the condition that has been
compliedwith.
[23]
CArollo,pp.144146.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/172410.htm

12/12