Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Poli Rev Digest 157847

    Uploaded by

    Jethro
    The Supreme Court ruled that just compensation for expropriated property must be determined as of the time the expropriating authority takes physical possession of the property, not when legal proceedings are filed or a writ of possession is issued. In this case, the Air Transportation Office took possession of part of the respondents' land in 1956 but did not file an expropriation case until 1998. The Court determined compensation should be based on the land value in 1956 when it was taken, not in 1999 when the writ was issued, because what the owners lose is the actual value at the time of taking, not at a later date when legal proceedings are finalized. Basing compensation on the later date could unfairly inflate or reduce the property

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Poli Rev Digest 157847

    Uploaded by

    Jethro
    33 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that just compensation for expropriated property must be determined as of the time the expropriating authority takes physical possession of the property, not when legal proceedings are filed or a writ of possession is issued. In this case, the Air Transportation Office took possession of part of the respondents' land in 1956 but did not file an expropriation case until 1998. The Court determined compensation should be based on the land value in 1956 when it was taken, not in 1999 when the writ was issued, because what the owners lose is the actual value at the time of taking, not at a later date when legal proceedings are finalized. Basing compensation on the later date could unfairly inflate or reduce the property

    Original Description:

    Poli Rev Digest 157847

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that just compensation for expropriated property must be determined as of the time the expropriating authority takes physical possession of the property, not when legal proceedings are filed or a writ of possession is issued. In this case, the Air Transportation Office took possession of part of the respondents' land in 1956 but did not file an expropriation case until 1998. The Court determined compensation should be based on the land value in 1956 when it was taken, not in 1999 when the writ was issued, because what the owners lose is the actual value at the time of taking, not at a later date when legal proceedings are finalized. Basing compensation on the later date could unfairly inflate or reduce the property

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views2 pages

    Poli Rev Digest 157847

    Uploaded by

    Jethro
    The Supreme Court ruled that just compensation for expropriated property must be determined as of the time the expropriating authority takes physical possession of the property, not when legal proceedings are filed or a writ of possession is issued. In this case, the Air Transportation Office took possession of part of the respondents' land in 1956 but did not file an expropriation case until 1998. The Court determined compensation should be based on the land value in 1956 when it was taken, not in 1999 when the writ was issued, because what the owners lose is the actual value at the time of taking, not at a later date when legal proceedings are finalized. Basing compensation on the later date could unfairly inflate or reduce the property

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    157847 August 25, 2005

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the AIR


    TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (ATO), Petitioners,

    vs.

    LEODIGARIO SARABIA, HERMENIGILDO DE LA CRUZ,


    DELIA REBUTAR, MILDRED ROSE, ANITA DE LA CRUZ,
    ERLINDA LUCERIO, GEORGIE DE LA CRUZ, FELMA DE
    LA CRUZ, FELINO DE LA CRUZ, TERESITA SAMSON,
    EVANGELINE COLOMER, Respondents.

    Facts: Sometime in 1956, the petitioner took possession and control


    of the substantial portion of the lot owned by the private respondents.
    The occupied portion was used as an airport parking area and in time,
    several structures were erected on it.

    In 1998, petitioner filed an action for the expropriation of the entire


    lot. However, expropriation and writ of possession was granted only
    as to the actual portion occupied and not on its entirety. Through the
    court-appointed commissioners’ reports, the trial court fixed the just
    compensation for the occupied portion at its current market value in
    1999. The trial court fixed the just compensation based on the current
    market value not at the time of the taking which was in 1956, but at
    the time of the issuance of the writ of possession in 1999. To the trial
    court, the date of the issuance of the writ has to be considered in
    fixing the just compensation because the same signified petitioner’s
    proper acquisition and taking of the property which involves not only
    physical possession but also the legal right to possess and own the
    same. CA affirmed the trial court’s order.

    Issue: The precise time at which just compensation should be


    fixed: whether as of the time of actual taking of possession by the
    expropriating entity, as insisted by petitioner, or at the issuance of the
    writ of possession pursuant to the expropriation proceedings, as
    maintained by the respondents and sustained by both the trial court
    and the Court of Appeals.

    Held: Compensation for property expropriated must be


    determined as of the time the expropriating authority takes possession
    thereof and not as of the institution of the proceedings.

    The value of the property should be fixed as of the date when it was
    taken and not the date of the filing of the proceedings. For where
    property is taken ahead of the filing of the condemnation
    proceedings, the value thereof may be enhanced by the public
    purpose for which it is taken; the entry by the plaintiff upon the
    property may have depreciated its value thereby; or, there may have
    been a natural increase in the value of the property from the time it is
    taken to the time the complaint is filed, due to general economic
    conditions. The owner of private property should be compensated
    only for what he actually loses; it is not intended that his
    compensation shall extend beyond his loss or injury. And what he
    loses is only the actual value of his property at the time it is taken.
    This is the only way the compensation to be paid can be truly just;
    i.e., "just" not only to the individual whose property is taken, "but to
    the public, which is to pay for it”.

    You might also like