FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 136171.
July 2, 2002]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
petitioner, vs. KER AND COMPANY LIMITED, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before us is a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department
of Public Works and Highways, assailing the decision rendered by the Court of
Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 54256 entitled, “Republic of the Philippines v. Ker
and Company Limited.” The decision in question affirmed the trial court in
ordering petitioner to pay herein respondent Ker Company Limited the sum of Six
Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) per square meter as just compensation for the 1,186
square meter lot (Site I) which was expropriated by the government.
The factual
background:
Petitioner filed
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City a petition for
expropriation of portions of two (2) parcels of land owned by respondent
described as follows:
Lot No. TCT
No. Total Area Affected Area
Site I 2-D-1-A-2 T-212616 29.583
sq. m. 1,186 sq. m.
Site II 2-D-1-B-1 T-212617 2,902
sq. m. 1,035 sq. m.
Petitioner
needed the parcels of land for the widening of the road component of J.P.
Laurel-Buhangin Interchange in Davao City. The provisional value of the
properties sought to be expropriated was fixed at the aggregate sum of Two
Million Two Hundred Twenty One Thousand Pesos (P2,221,000.00) or One Thousand
Pesos (P1,000.00) per square meter. Respondent claimed that the value of the
properties subject for expropriation is more than Four Thousand Pesos
(P4,000.00) per square meter.
After study and investigation, the duly appointed commissioners, Ms.
Lucia E. Pelayo and Mr. Oliver Morales of Cuervo Appraisers, Inc. gave the
following estimates as just compensation for the areas affected:
Site
I 1,186 sq. m. = P
8,788.70/square meter
Site II 1,035
sq. m. = P 5,423.48/square meter
While petitioner
found the valuation of respondent’s property in Site II reasonable, petitioner,
in its comment on the Report of the Appraisers found the estimate for Site I
excessive, stating that:
1) the
provincial Appraisal Committee in a joint Appraisal Report dated January 14,
1993 recommended the market value of Ker and Company’s property at P1,000.00
per square meter;
2) the
highest valuation of lots within the JP Laurel-Buhangin area adjudicated by the
RTC, Davao City in a decision rendered on December 23, 1993 is at P4,000.00 per
sq. meter; and,
3) the
appraisers did not take into account that the areas in the proceedings are
being expropriated for use in a government project vested with public interest.
On September 27,
1996, the RTC rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:
“With the determination of just
compensation, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Declaring plaintiff to have a lawful right to
acquire possession of and title to:
a) 1,186 square meters only of
defendant Ker’s parcel of land covered by Certificate of Title T-212616
described as Site I;
b) 1,035 square meters only of
defendant Ker’s parcel of land covered by Certificate of Title T-212617
described as Site II;
2. Condemning portions of the above-described parcels
of land including improvements thereon, if there be any, free from all liens
and encumbrances;
3.
Ordering plaintiff to pay:
a) Defendant Ker P6,000.00 per
square meter for the P1,186 in Site I;
b) Defendant Ker P5,423.48 per square
meter for the 1,035 in Site II
as fair and just compensation.” [1]
Petitioner
appealed to the Court of Appeals alleging that the value fixed by the trial
court as just compensation for Site I should be reduced. Petitioner alleged
that when the petition for expropriation was filed, the tax declaration of the
property indicated its assessed value at only Four Hundred Twenty-Five Pesos
(P425.00) per square meter while its market value was only Eight Hundred Forty
Nine Pesos (P849.00) per square meter. Petitioner cited the case of Civil Case
No. 22-052-93 entitled “Republic v. Laong”[2] where the
RTC of Davao City (Branch 17) fixed the value of the lots within the area of
J.P. Laurel Buhangin at Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) per square meter.
The appellate
court affirmed the decision of the lower court in toto, ruling that just
compensation cannot be measured by the assessed value of the property as stated
in the tax declaration and schedule of market values approved by the Provincial
Appraisal Committee and that for the purpose of appraisal, the fair market
value of the property is taken into account and such value refers to the
highest price in terms of money which a property will bring if exposed for sale
in the public market. The appellate court brushed aside petitioner’s reliance
on Republic v. Laong.
Petitioner in
the present petition raises essentially the same issues which were raised
before the trial court and the appellate court. In addition however, petitioner
avers that since Site I is adjacent to Site II, there are no substantial
distinctions to warrant different valuations.
The appellate
court did not err in not upholding petitioner’s claim that the valuation for
the lot in Site I is excessive and unreasonable since the tax declaration of
the property indicated its assessed value at only Four Hundred Twenty-Five
Pesos (P425.00) per square meter while its market value was only Eight Hundred
Forty-Nine Pesos (P849.00) per square meter based on the revised 1993 schedule
of market values. We have declared in Manotok v. National Housing
Authority[3], that
the statements made in tax documents by the assessor may serve as one of the
factors to be considered but they cannot exclude or prevail over a court
determination after expert commissioners have examined the property and all
pertinent circumstances are taken into account and after all the parties have
had the opportunity to fully plead their cases before a competent and unbiased
tribunal.
That the tax
declaration of the property in Site I indicated a much lower assessed or market
value therefore does not make commissioners’ valuation of just compensation for
the property excessive or unreasonable. The duly appointed commissioners of
both parties made a careful study of the properties subject of expropriation.
They considered factors such as the location, the most profitable likely use of
the remaining area, size, shape, accessibility as well as listings of other
properties within the vicinity to arrive at a reasonable estimate of just
compensation for both lots due the respondent. Petitioner, in fact, does not
question the commissioners’ appraisal value as just compensation for the area
affected in Site II.
Petitioner
maintains that the assessment of just compensation for the lot in Site I is excessive
since the highest valuation made for the properties within the vicinity of J.P.
Laurel-Buhangin Road was pegged at Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) in a
decision rendered by Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao in December
1993. This contention is not plausible. In computing just compensation for
expropriation proceedings, it is the value of the land at the time of the
taking or at the time of the filing of the complaint not at the time of the
rendition of judgment which should be taken into consideration.[4] Section
4, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that just compensation
is to be determined as of the date of the taking or the filing of the complaint
whichever came first. On this matter, the appellate court is correct in
disregarding petitioner’s claim.
Nonetheless, we
find merit in petitioner’s contention that there are no substantial
distinctions between the lot in Site I and the lot in Site II to warrant
different valuations.
The lots subject
of expropriation are adjacent to each other. The Appraisal Report even
indicated that the remaining area of the lot in Site II has the same problem as
in Site I with respect to access. The construction of the service road has
created a problem pertaining to ingress or egress to the remaining portions of
both Sites.[5]
Considering that there is no evidence showing substantial distinctions between
the lots affected by Site I and Site II and no explanation was given by the
commissioners as to why Site I had been given a higher valuation than Site II,
we find it just and reasonable that the undisputed sum of Five Thousand Four
Hundred Twenty-Three Pesos and Forty-Eight Centavos (P5,423.48) per square
meter as just compensation for Site II should likewise apply to Site I.
Wherefore, the petition is partially GRANTED.
The assailed decision of the appellate court in C.A. G.R. CV No. 54256 is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION only in so far as the value for the lot in Site I is
concerned. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines is ordered to pay respondent
Ker Company Limited Five Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Three Pesos and
Forty-Eight Centavos (P5,423.48) per square meter as just compensation for the
1,186 square meter lot expropriated in Site I.
No pronouncement
as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.