17. REPUBLIC VS CEBUAN gain, but the owner's loss.

gain, but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word
G.R. NO. 191560 compensation and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the
MARCH 29, 2011 property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.
TOPIC: EXPROPRIATION 10. The limitation of just compensation is considered to be a sum equivalent to the market
PETITIONER: REPUBLIC OF PH REPRESENTED BY NAT’L IRRIGATION ADMIN. (NIA) value of the property, broadly defined as the price fixed by the seller in open market in the
RESPONDENTS: ROLAND CEBUAN ET AL usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition; or the fair value of the property;
PONENTE: TIJAM as between one who receives and one who desires to sell it, fixed at the time of the actual
DOCTRINE: Just compensation can only be determined by reliable and actual data hence courts taking by the government.
should be circumspect in determining such due to the owners considering that public funds are 11. Courts have the discretion to determine just compensation pursuant to the mandate that
used to buy said properties. no property shall be taken for public use w/o payment of just compensation. Thus, the
FACTS: other gov’t branches that fixes or provides the method of computing just compensation is
1. NIA identified several parcels of land for its Lower Agusan Dev’t Project (Project) to an encroachment on judicial power. Sec. 5, RA 8974 provides an enumeration of the
construct irrigation canals. Said lands were owned by the respondents herein. standards to determine the assessed value of a property thus NIA’s claimed that the price
2. NIA commenced expropriation proceedings after failure to negotiate a sale w/ should be fixed based on the zonal evaluation and tax declarations are misplaced as there
respondents. It based the values of the properties on BIR Zonal Evaluation as specified in are other factors to be considered.
DO No. 16-2000 thus arriving w/ a total aggregate amount of PhP60,094.50 for all the 12. Just compensation can only be determined by reliable and actual data hence courts should
parcels of land, w/c measured 11,737m2, sought to be expropriated. (So if you divide the be circumspect in determining such due to the owners considering that public funds are
monetary amount with the total land area, its equal to PhP5.12/m2) used to buy said properties. In this case, the BOC used the Market Data Approach wherein
3. Respondents were willing to accede the lands to NIA provided that the properties be sales and other external factors such as location and characteristics of the properties are
valued at least PhP300/m2. Nevertheless, in 2002-2003, respondents executed a permit to taken into account, appraisals from other sources and site inspection hence the market
enter in NIA’s favor and corresponding payments for damages caused to crops therein; value was backed up by actual and reliable data.
however, some of the respondents did not get paid as they had no improvements on their 13. While just compensation, to which the owner of the property to be expropriated is
respective properties. entitled, is equivalent to the market value, the rule is modified where only a part of
4. NIA moved for possession and deposit the said amount involved based on the current BIR property is expropriated. As such, the owner is not restricted to compensation to what was
Zonal Value and other documents to w/c the RTC granted. Some of the respondents move actually taken, but is also entitled to consequential damages as found in Sec. 6, Rule 67.
to defer the possession as they had not been fully paid of the improvements on their Sec. 6. Proceedings by commissioners. - Before entering upon the performance of their
properties as they were deprived of the use of the same since 1999. duties, the commissioners shall take and subscribe an oath that they will faithfully perform
5. As proposed by NIA and agreed upon by parties, the RTC created a Board of Commissioners their duties as commissioners, which oath shall be filed in court with the other proceedings
(BOC) to determine the fair market value of the properties. It found that some of the in the case. Evidence may be introduced by either party before the commissioners who are
properties were priced at PhP45/m2 while some were priced at PhP120/m2. NIA opposed authorized to administer oaths on hearings before them, and the commissioners shall,
said report for being grossly excessive then contended that the value of the properties unless the parties consent to the contrary, after due notice to the parties, to attend, view
should only be PhP0.90/m2 w/c was the price of the properties when they were bought by and examine the property sought to be expropriated and its surroundings, and may
NIA. measure the same, after which either party may, by himself or counsel, argue the case. The
6. RTC: Rendered partial judgement and adopted the BOC’s report. There was a land similar commissioners shall assess the consequential damages to the property not taken and
to the properties in this case that was bought by NIA priced at PhP160/m2 w/c was not deduct from such consequential damages the consequential benefits to be derived by the
refuted by NIA. owner from the public use or purpose of the property taken, the operation of its franchise
7. CA: Partially granted NIA’s appeal. It held that the recommended assessed value by the by the corporation or the carrying on of the business of the corporation or person taking
BOC were not exorbitant as it were based on the appraisal by different people, the findings the property. But in no case shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the
of ocular inspection, distance to national roads, the crops therein and other similar consequential damages assessed, or the owner be deprived of the actual value of his
adjacent lands. The BIR Zonal Evaluation should not have been the sole basis for NIA’s property so taken.
pricing. However, it observed that some of the respondents were not paid for the 14. If as a result of expropriation, the remaining portion suffers from diminution or
improvements of their properties hence the case was remanded to the RTC for further impairment, consequential damages should be awarded, while conversely, if the
reception of evidence. expropriation benefits the remaining lot, such benefits may be deducted from the
8. ISSUE: WoN NIA’s appraisal based on the BIR Zonal Evaluation was correct – consequential damages or from value of the expropriated property. They should be actual
RULING benefits derived by the owner w/c are direct and proximate results of the improvements
NO EROR IN THE ASSESSMENT VALUE OF THE LAND due to expropriation.
9. In expropriation proceedings, just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent REMAND TO EXPROPRIATION COURT FOR DETERMINING ALLEGED UNDERPAYMENT ON THE
of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENT IS UNNECEESARY
15. Per records, the disbursement vouchers show that payments for improvements have been
made and received by the owners. Respondents never contested the amount paid. Only
when they filed a MR for the issuance of writ of possession did they allege underpayment
of the improvements arose and there was no proof in relation thereto presented.
16. Further perusal of respondents’ statements as to the alleged underpayment show what
they were really claiming was the value of the affected crops due to NIA’s entry into their
properties w/c is not within the ambit of RA 8971 as it only pertains to improvements and
not unrealized harvests.
17. Their alleged deprivation from 1999 is unfounded as NIA entered said properties in 2003
after payment of the improvements from time of taking.
FALLO: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court RESOLVES to PARTLY GRANT the Petition such
that:
The assailed Decision dated July 13, 2012 and Resolution dated February 6, 2013 of the Court
of Appeals finding petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the National Irrigation
Authority, liable to pay just compensation in the amount computed by the Regional Trial Court
sans the award for unrealized income are AFFIRMED.
However, in conformity with the existing laws, rules, and jurisprudence, the amount of legal
interest is MODIFIED such that the interest rate of twelve percent (12%) p.a. on the balance
due from May 7, 2003 until June 30, 2013 and the interest rate of six percent (6%) p.a. from
July 1, 2013 until fully paid are imposed.
The order remanding the instant case to the Regional Trial Court for determination of alleged
unpaid improvements on the affected properties is DELETED.