Digest

DANILO BARTOLATA, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT REBECCA R.
PILOT
AND/OR DIONISIO P. PILOT, PETITIONER VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND TOLL REGULATORY BOARD,
RESPONDENTS
G.R. NO. 223334, JUNE 7, 2017
THIRD DIVISION
PONENTE: JUSTICE VELASCO, JR.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 100523, dated July 10, 2015 and March 7, 2016, respectively.
The challenged rulings denied petitioner's claim for just compensation on the ground that the portion of his
property that was used by the government was subject to an easement of right of way. Additionally, the CA
ordered petitioner to return any payment made to him by the government in relation to the enforcement of
the easement.
FACTS:
Petitioner Danilo Bartolata acquired a 400 square meter parcel of land by virtue of the Order of
Award from the Director of Bureau of Lands through an auction sale. Sometime in 1997, petitioner and
respondents entered into a contract of sale for the acquisition of the 223 square meters of petitioner’s
property for the development of the Metro Manila Skyway Project. The value of the affected property is
P12, 265, 000.00. The respondents made a partial payment of P1,480,000.00. However, after this, the
respondent failed to pay the petitioner for the remaining balance, hence, the latter filed a complaint for sum
of money against the respondents. The respondents then argued that, since the 223 square meters parcel of
land it bought from the petitioner is subject to the easement of right of way pursuant to the Order of Award
made by the Bureau of Lands which include an encumbrance that the government is entitled to an easement
of right of way not exceeding 60 meters in width, without need of payment for just compensation, save for
the value of improvements existing under Section 112 of Act No. 141, the petitioner should return the partial
payment it made to him. But petitioner still asserts that he could not be held liable to return the initial
payment made by respondents in the amount of ₱1,480,000. This amount, to petitioner, constitutes part and
parcel of the just compensation he is legally entitled to for the government's use of his private property.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to retain the partial payment of P1, 480, 000.00 paid by the
respondents?
HELD:
No. Petitioner was not entitled to retain the partial payment of P1, 480, 000.00 paid by the
respondents.
Guilty of reiteration, Sec. 112 of CA 141 precludes petitioner from claiming just compensation for
the government's enforcement of its right of way. The contract allegedly entered by the parties for the
government's acquisition of the affected portion of the property in exchange for just compensation is then
void ab initio for being contrary to law. Consequently, petitioner has no right to collect just compensation
for the government's use of the 223 square meter lot. Anent the ₱l, 480,000 partial payment already made
by respondents, such amount paid shall be governed by the provisions on solutio indebiti or unjust
enrichment.
"Solutia indebiti" arises when something is delivered through mistake to a person who has no right to
demand it. It obligates the latter to return what has been received through mistake. As defined in Article
2154 of the Civil Code, the concept has two indispensable requisites: first, that something has been unduly
delivered through mistake; and second, that something was received when there was no right to demand it.
As discussed above, petitioner was never entitled to collect and receive just compensation for the
government's enforcement of its right of way, including the ₱l, 480,000 payments made by respondents.
For its part, the government erroneously made payment to petitioner because of its failure to discover earlier
on that the portion of the property acquired was subject to a statutory lien in its favor, which it could have
easily learned of upon perusal of petitioner's Order of Award. These circumstances satisfy the requirements
for solutio indebiti to apply.

Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DANILO BARTOLATA, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT REBECCA R.

PONENTE: JUSTICE VELASCO, JR.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

You might also like