FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 142971. May 7, 2002]

THE CITY OF CEBU, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES APOLONIO and BLASA
DEDAMO, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DAVIDE, JR., C.J .:
In its petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
petitioner City of Cebu assails the decision of 11 October 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. 59204
[1]
affirming the judgment of 7 May 1996 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 13, Cebu City, in Civil Case No. CEB-14632, a case for eminent domain, which
fixed the valuation of the land subject thereof on the basis of the recommendation of the
commissioners appointed by it.
The material operative facts are not disputed.
On 17 September 1993, petitioner City of Cebu filed in Civil Case No. CEB-14632 a
complaint for eminent domain against respondents spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo. The
petitioner alleged therein that it needed the following parcels of land of respondents, to wit:
Lot No. 1527
Area----------------------------1,146 square meters
Tax Declaration---------------03472
Title No.-----------------------31833
Market value------------------P240,660.00
Assessed Value---------------P72,200.00
Lot No. 1528
Area--------------------------------------------------------793 square meters
Area sought to be-----------------------------------------478 square meters
expropriated
Tax Declaration-------------------------------------------03450
Title No. ---------------------------------------------------31832
Market value for the whole lot--------------------------P1,666,530.00
Market value of the Area to be expropriated----------P100,380.00
Assessed Value--------------------------------------------P49,960.00
for a public purpose, i.e., for the construction of a public road which shall serve as an
access/relief road of Gorordo Avenue to extend to the General Maxilum Avenue and the back of
Magellan International Hotel Roads in Cebu City. The lots are the most suitable site for the
purpose. The total area sought to be expropriated is 1,624 square meters with an assessed value
of P1,786,400. Petitioner deposited with the Philippine National Bank the amount of P51,156
representing 15% of the fair market value of the property to enable the petitioner to take
immediate possession of the property pursuant to Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160.
[2]

Respondents, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because the purpose for which their
property was to be expropriated was not for a public purpose but for benefit of a single private
entity, the Cebu Holdings, Inc. Petitioner could simply buy directly from them the property at its
fair market value if it wanted to, just like what it did with the neighboring lots. Besides, the price
offered was very low in light of the consideration of P20,000 per square meter, more or less,
which petitioner paid to the neighboring lots. Finally, respondents alleged that they have no
other land in Cebu City.
A pre-trial was thereafter had.
On 23 August 1994, petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession
pursuant to Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160. The motion was granted by the trial court on 21
September 1994.
[3]

On 14 December 1994, the parties executed and submitted to the trial court an
Agreement
[4]
wherein they declared that they have partially settled the case and in consideration
thereof they agreed:
1. That the SECOND PARTY hereby conforms to the intention to [sic] the FIRST PARTY in
expropriating their parcels of land in the above-cited case as for public purpose and for the
benefit of the general public;
2. That the SECOND PARTY agrees to part with the ownership of the subject parcels of land
in favor of the FIRST PARTY provided the latter will pay just compensation for the same in
the amount determined by the court after due notice and hearing;
3. That in the meantime the SECOND PARTY agrees to receive the amount of ONE MILLION
SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED PESOS
(1,786,400.00) as provisional payment for the subject parcels of land, without prejudice to
the final valuation as maybe determined by the court;
4. That the FIRST PARTY in the light of the issuance of the Writ of Possession Order dated
September 21, 1994 issued by the Honorable Court, agreed to take possession over that
portion of the lot sought to be expropriated where the house of the SECOND PARTY was
located only after fifteen (15) days upon the receipt of the SECOND PARTY of the amount
of P1,786,400.00;
5. That the SECOND PARTY upon receipt of the aforesaid provisional amount, shall turn over
to the FIRST PARTY the title of the lot and within the lapse of the fifteen (15) days grace
period will voluntarily demolish their house and the other structure that may be located
thereon at their own expense;
6. That the FIRST PARTY and the SECOND PARTY jointly petition the Honorable Court to
render judgment in said Civil Case No. CEB-14632 in accordance with this AGREEMENT;
7. That the judgment sought to be rendered under this agreement shall be followed by a
supplemental judgment fixing the just compensation for the property of the SECOND
PARTY after the Commissioners appointed by this Honorable Court to determine the same
shall have rendered their report and approved by the court.
Pursuant to said agreement, the trial court appointed three commissioners to determine the
just compensation of the lots sought to be expropriated. The commissioners were Palermo M.
Lugo, who was nominated by petitioner and who was designated as Chairman; Alfredo Cisneros,
who was nominated by respondents; and Herbert E. Buot, who was designated by the trial
court. The parties agreed to their appointment.
Thereafter, the commissioners submitted their report, which contained their respective
assessments of and recommendation as to the valuation of the property.
On the basis of the commissioners report and after due deliberation thereon, the trial court
rendered its decision on 7 May 1996,
[5]
the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in accordance
with the report of the commissioners.
Plaintiff is directed to pay Spouses Apolonio S. Dedamo and Blasa Dedamo the sum
of pesos: TWENTY FOUR MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE
THOUSAND AND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY (P24,865.930.00) representing the
compensation mentioned in the Complaint.
Plaintiff and defendants are directed to pay the following commissioners fee;
1. To Palermo Lugo - P21,000.00
2. To Herbert Buot - P19,000.00
3. To Alfredo Cisneros - P19,000.00
Without pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the commissioners report
was inaccurate since it included an area which was not subject to expropriation. More
specifically, it contended that Lot No. 1528 contains 793 square meters but the actual area to be
expropriated is only 478 square meters. The remaining 315 square meters is the subject of a
separate expropriation proceeding in Civil Case No. CEB-8348, then pending before Branch 9 of
the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City.
On 16 August 1996, the commissioners submitted an amended assessment for the 478
square meters of Lot No. 1528 and fixed it at P12,824.10 per square meter, or in the amount
of P20,826,339.50. The assessment was approved as the just compensation thereof by the trial
court in its Order of 27 December 1996.
[6]
Accordingly, the dispositive portion of the decision
was amended to reflect the new valuation.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which docketed the case as CA-G.R.
CV No. 59204. Petitioner alleged that the lower court erred in fixing the amount of just
compensation at P20,826,339.50. The just compensation should be based on the prevailing
market price of the property at the commencement of the expropriation proceedings.
The petitioner did not convince the Court of Appeals. In its decision of 11 October
1999,
[7]
the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.
Still unsatisfied, petitioner filed with us the petition for review in the case at bar. It raises
the sole issue of whether just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of
the complaint. It asserts that it should be, which in this case should be 17 September 1993 and
not at the time the property was actually taken in 1994, pursuant to the decision in National
Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals.
[8]

In their Comment, respondents maintain that the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming
the decision of the trial court because (1) the trial court decided the case on the basis of the
agreement of the parties that just compensation shall be fixed by commissioners appointed by the
court; (2) petitioner did not interpose any serious objection to the commissioners report of 12
August 1996 fixing the just compensation of the 1,624-square meter lot atP20,826,339.50; hence,
it was estopped from attacking the report on which the decision was based; and (3) the
determined just compensation fixed is even lower than the actual value of the property at the
time of the actual taking in 1994.
Eminent domain is a fundamental State power that is inseparable from sovereignty. It is the
Governments right to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State, private
property for public use or purpose.
[9]
However, the Government must pay the owner thereof just
compensation as consideration therefor.
In the case at bar, the applicable law as to the point of reckoning for the determination of
just compensation is Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160, which expressly provides that just
compensation shall be determined as of the time of actual taking. The Section reads as follows:
SECTION 19. Eminent Domain. -- A local government unit may, through its chief
executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain
for public use, or purpose or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon
payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and
pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be
exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and
such offer was not accepted: Provided, further, That the local government unit may
immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation
proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen
percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax
declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided finally, That, the amount to
be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based
on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property.
The petitioner has misread our ruling in The National Power Corp. vs. Court of
Appeals.
[10]
We did not categorically rule in that case that just compensation should be
determined as of the filing of the complaint. We explicitly stated therein that although the
general rule in determining just compensation in eminent domain is the value of the property as
of the date of the filing of the complaint, the rule admits of an exception: where this Court fixed
the value of the property as of the date it was taken and not at the date of the commencement of
the expropriation proceedings.
Also, the trial court followed the then governing procedural law on the matter, which was
Section 5 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, which provided as follows:
SEC. 5. Ascertainment of compensation. -- Upon the entry of the order of
condemnation, the court shall appoint not more than three (3) competent and
disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just
compensation for the property sought to be taken. The order of appointment shall
designate the time and place of the first session of the hearing to be held by the
commissioners and specify the time within which their report is to be filed with the
court.
More than anything else, the parties, by a solemn document freely and voluntarily agreed
upon by them, agreed to be bound by the report of the commission and approved by the trial
court. The agreement is a contract between the parties. It has the force of law between them and
should be complied with in good faith. Article 1159 and 1315 of the Civil Code explicitly
provides:
Art. 1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the
contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.
Art. 1315. Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties
are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to
all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good
faith, usage and law.
Furthermore, during the hearing on 22 November 1996, petitioner did not interpose a serious
objection.
[11]
It is therefore too late for petitioner to question the valuation now without violating
the principle of equitable estoppel. Estoppel in pais arises when one, by his acts, representations
or admissions, or by his own silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through
culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully
relies and acts on such belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the
existence of such facts.
[12]
Records show that petitioner consented to conform with the valuation
recommended by the commissioners. It cannot detract from its agreement now and assail
correctness of the commissioners assessment.
Finally, while Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides that just compensation shall
be determined at the time of the filing of the complaint for expropriation,
[13]
such law cannot
prevail over R.A. 7160, which is a substantive law.
[14]

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed judgment of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59204, the petition in this case is hereby DENIED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Kapunan, Ynares-Santiago, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.