|
PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY,
Petitioner, -versus- Remedios
Rosales-Bondoc, Jose K. Rosales, Jr., Maria Teresa Antolin-Yupangco, Maria
Lourdes Antolin, Arsenio Abacan, Pedro Alcantara, Heirs of Popula Llana,
Godofredo Rosales, Luis Lira, Zenaida Lira, Corazon Ilao, Milagros
Macatangay, Lilia Singuimoto, Gerardo Abacan, Jose Noel Agbing, et al., Marciana Buenafe, Esteban Espino, Brigido LontoK, Bienvenido
Maralit, Aurea Acosta, Consuelo Lacantara, Benjamin Castillo, Augusto
Claveria, Rufino Geron, Segundina Gualberto, Sixto Gualberto, Adoracion
Cabral, HeirS of Lucila Aldover, Jaime Tauro, Simeon Magtibay, Constancia
Villamor Barcelo, Ma. Consolacion Sarmiento, Priscilla Buenafe, Ma. Clara
Berba, Pacita Berba, Amelia Berba, Rafael Berba, Mariano Diokno, Heirs of
Basilio Macaraig, Felino Hernandez, Jose Maranan, Gregorio Dapat, Manuel
Amul, Daniel Magadia, Luisa Montalbo, Simeon Balita, Maria Lacsamana, Maria
Caedo, Maria Español, Pedro Marasigan, Andrea Balina, Eulalio Buenafe,
Generosa Buenafe, Liliana Abacan (co-owner of Gerardo Abacan), Erlinda Abacan (co-owner of Gerardo
Abacan), Consolacion Acosta, Cecille
Olivia Cuisia, Delia E. Velasco, Alfredo P. Espino, Efren Espino, Alfredo
Bautista, Rafael Llana, Rustica Llana, Pedro Magadia, Rose Magadia, Arnel
Perez, Evarista Bauan, Carlito Casas, Azucena Perez, Esperanza Dimaandal,
Juana MacalalAd, Pablo Mendoza, Doroteo Macatangay, Francisco Sumanga,
Librada Macatangay Vda. De Abas, Maria Montalbo, Wilson Ong, Agrifina Garcia,
Isabel Ilao, Heirs of Melanio Acosta & Pelagia Acosta, Rosa D. Magadia,
GuaDAlupe Dayanghirang, Lauro Abraham, Felisa Macatangay, Francisco Abalos,
Petra Alano, Heirs of Severo Alano, Heirs of Soledad Alano, Heirs of
Inocencio Alano, Heirs of Remedios Alano, Heirs of Antonio Alano, Heirs of
Felipe Alano, Erlinda D. Balina, Nemesio Balina, Felipa Acosta, Lamberto
Acosta, Emilio Berberabe, Sole Heir of Gabriela Acosta, Estanislaw Acosta,
Heirs of Cecilia Dimaandal, Heirs of Francisco Sumanga, Heirs of Simeon
Magtibay, Heirs of Cesario Rivera and Anatacia Aldover, Francisco A.
Berberabe, Emilio F. Berberabe, Jr., Anita G. Escano, Lydia G. Capulong,
Erlinda Bermer (Germer), Erlinda G. Gonzales, Romulo G. Gonzales, Anunciacion
Gutierrez, Silverio Atienza, Felipe Serrano and Spouse, J.L. Gandionco
Realty, Gregorio Baliwag, Lourdes Mercado, Augusto Mercado, Heirs of Fidencio
Mercado, Heirs of Concepcion Mercado, saturnino perez, et al., DOMINGO L. TAN, DANIEL MAGADIA, CELIA
PASION DIMAANDAL, et al., Luisa
Villanueva, Simeon Balina, Joel Berberabe, Thomas Berberabe, Heirs of Nestor
Alcantara, Enrico Alcantara, Leonardo Alcantara, Romulo Balina, Juana
Dimaandal, Catalina D. Balina, Heirs of fortunata Balina, Sps. Zoilo Aldover
and Catalina Montalbo, Heirs of Pedro Montalbo & Mauricia Balina,
Adoracion Magtibay, Heirs of Vicente Gutierrez, Edilberto Dimaandal &
Lilia Gabia, Heirs of Evaristo Montalbo & Felisa Montalbo, Heirs of
Leocadio Alano & Leonila Alano, Tomasa Balina, Lumin Antolin (rep.
by Leandro Galvez), Vicente De Rivera,
Rene De Rivera, Francisco Mercado, Serafin Montalbo, Fortunata Bauna, Salud
Macaraig, Florendo Macatangay, Pastor Realty Corp., Luz Balmes, Perpetua
Atienza, Fortunata Atienza, IsaBelo Atienza, Brothers of Fortunata Balina,
Rosalinda C. Rosales, and Patricio
Sumanga, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 173392 Present: pUNO, C.J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated: August
24, 2007 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari
assailing the Resolution[1]
dated July 3, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (Tenth Division) in the following
consolidated cases: CA-G.R. CV No. 77668, Philippine Ports Authority v.
Remedios Rosales-Bondoc, et al.; CA-G.R. SP No. 87844, Philippine Ports
Authority v. Hon. Paterno V. Tac-an, et al.; and CA-G.R. SP No. 90796, Philippine
Ports Authority v. Hon. Paterno V. Tac-an.
The undisputed facts as shown by the records are:
On P336.83 per square
meter. Petitioner prayed that an order
be immediately issued placing it in possession of the properties upon its
deposit with the authorized government depository of an amount equivalent to
their assessed value for purposes of taxation; and that eventually, an order be
also issued fixing the just compensation, deducting therefrom the initial
deposit made.
Acting on the first prayer, the trial court issued a writ
of possession in favor of petitioner PPA upon its payment of P400.00 per
square meter. Since
The trial court then grouped the defendants (now
respondents) into three (3) sets to facilitate their reference, thus:
a. The
first group is represented by Atty. Reynaldo Dimayacyac;
b. The second group is represented by Attys.
Cesar Cruz and Gregorio Ortega; and
c. The
third group is represented by Atty. Emmanuel Agustin.
The groups filed their respective answers. Majority of the respondents prayed that the
just compensation should be fixed at P8,000.00
per square meter.
On
Subsequently, the Commissioners conducted hearings to determine
the just compensation.
On P4,800.00 per square meter as just compensation or expropriation
price, “subject to further review, valuation, discretion and sound judgment of
this Honorable Court.”
Thereupon, petitioner filed its Comment on the Partial
Report maintaining that the just compensation should be lower than P4,800.00
per square meter because the lands are agricultural in nature and that they are
not being used for commercial or industrial purposes.
On P5,500.00 per square meter as just compensation.
After
the other respondents have presented their evidence as to the just compensation
of their properties, the Commissioners submitted a Second Partial Report
reiterating their previous recommendation of just compensation.
On
On the
same day, P5,500.00 per square meter of respondents’ lots and the lots of
those similarly situated and of those who did not file their answers. The Order reads:
For resolution is the Second Report on Appraisal of the Fair Market
Valuation dated P4,800.00 per
square meter.
The Court, acting on the Partial Report, issued an Order dated P5,500.00
per square meter, as to the properties of the defendants named therein.
Mentioned in the second report is the findings and recommendation of
Amicus Curiae, Cuervo Appraisers, Inc., thru Manager/Appraiser Salvador D.
Oscianas. He rendered an opinion that
the fair market value per square meter ranges from P5,500.00 to a
maximum of P6,000.00 (Report as Exhibit ‘97’, supplemented by his
testimony in Court on July 18, 2000). He mentioned three (3) prior
landsales/transactions within the zone, to wit:
1. Deed of Absolute Sale between
Demetrio Marasigan in favor of Phil. Ports Authority (PPA for brevity) dated P5,000.00.
2. Judgment by compromise
agreement dated P5,200.00.
3. Purchase by First Gas at Sta. Rita (fronting P10,000.00
per square meter (industrial zone) a little further than Sta. Clara into the
seashore in 1997.
Mr. Oscianas stated that the lands in the
area in question are for commercial/light industrial purposes. These are developed areas as per his ocular
inspection. It is accessible by National
highways (Calicanto) from P15,000.00 per square
meter than the recorded past sales prices.
He recommended for a maximum price of P6,000.00 per square meter
as fair market value of the properties in question.
Atty. Emmanuel Agustin in behalf of his clients submitted a Decision by
Compromise Agreement dated January 20, 1999 in the Court of Appeals in that
case of Dimaano vs. PPA pegging the price per square meter at P10,000.00
involving a similarly situated lot (Exh. ‘47’).
Jurisprudence on expropriation pricing has shown that the fair market
valuation is greatly guided by prior sales near the date of expropriation
(Toledo City vs. Fernandos, et al., G.R. L-45144, April 15, 1998 and prior
Supreme Court decisions).
Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court hereby sets the fair
market value at P5,500.00 per square meter of
the lots of the above-named defendants and those similarly situated, including
those who did not file answer.
SO ORDERED.
Subsequently, the trial court issued several Orders
directing petitioner to pay respondents, represented by their respective
counsel, just h
compensation computed at P5,500.00 per
square meter pursuant to its Order dated
1. Order dated
Pursuant to the order of 15 August 2000, plaintiff is required to pay by way of just
compensation to the following defendants, represented by Atty. Emmanuel D.
Agustin, to wit:
Names of Defendants TCT/Tax Dec. Area of Property Amount
Just
No. Owned by them.
compensation
Likewise, as men- due them based
tioned in the com- on P5,500.00/
plaint and in the sq.m. per August
Answer
15, 2000 partial
Judgment Order
1. Felipa D. Acosta
married to Honesto
Hernella;
Heirs of
Eleuterio D. Acosta
married to Martha
Galang;
Pacita D.
Acosta
married to
Emilio
Berberabe;
Lamberto D. Acosta
married to Angelina
Ituralde TD
No. 90-00010 13,131 sq. m. P
72,220,500.00
xxx
xxx
xxx
24 Heirs of Francisco TD No. 033- 856 sq. m.
4,708,000.00
Sumanga 02504
TD
No. 033- 1,305 sq. m. 7,177,500.00
02475
GRAND
TOTAL ……… P 854,293,000.00
= = = = = = = = =
SO ORDERED.
2. Order dated
Pursuant
to the Order dated 15 August 2000, plaintiff is required to pay by way of
just compensation to the following defendants, represented by Atty. Gregorio
Ortega and Atty. Simon T. Agbing, to wit:
Names of Defendants TCT/Tax Dec. Area of Property Amount
Just
No. owned by
them. compensation
Likewise, as men- due them based
tioned
in the com- on P5,500.00/
plaint and in the sq.m. per August
Answer 15, 2000 partial
Judgment Order
1. Pedro Alcantara md.
to Dorotea Macatangay TD 090-00003 1,581 PP
8,695,500.00
xxx
72 Heirs of Basilio Macaraeg TD 033-02525 1/7 of 5,088=726.85 3,997,675.00
and Pacencia del Mundo TD 033-02528 1/7 of 4,926=703.7 3,870,350.00
-----------------
TOTAL………P3,384,212,425.00
3.
Order dated
Pursuant to the Order dated 15 August 2000, plaintiff is required to pay by way of just
compensation to the following defendants, to wit:
Names of Defendants TCT/Tax Dec. Area of
Property Amount
Just
No. owned by
them. compensation
Likewise, as men- due them based
tioned in the com- on
P5,500.00/
plaint
and in the sq.m. per August
Answer 15,
2000 partial
Judgment Order
1. Pastor Realty Corp. TCT RT-627
(37429)
41,389 P 227,639,500.00
TCT
RT-626
(137428) 398 2,189,000,000.00
xxx xxx xxx
13. Florendo Macatangay TD-033-02476 1,250 6,875,000.00
---------------------
TOTAL……P 556,879,500.00
= = = = = = = = =
4. Order dated
Names of Defendants TCT/Tax Dec. Area of
Property Amount
Just
No. owned by
them. compensation
Likewise, as men- due them based
tioned in the com-
on P5,500.00/
plaint
and in the sq.m. per August
Answer 15, 2000 partial
Judgment Order
Counsel: Atty. Cesar C. Cruz
1. Remedios Rosales
Bondoc & Jose K. Rosales TCT No. T-43534 106,720 P 586,960,000.00
2. Heirs of Lumin Antolin TD-035-01704 54,681 30,745,500.00
--------------------
P 887,705,500.00
= = = = = = = =
xxx
xxx xxx
Defendants Baliwag (no counsel)
1. Gregorio Baliwag, Eliseo TD 035-02501 740 P 4,103,000.00
Baliwag, Crisanta Baliwag TD 033-02691 483 2,656,500.00
TD
033-02533 1,220.5 6,712,750.00
-----------------
P 13,472,250.00
= = = = = = = =
OVERALL
TOTAL …………….. P1,526,109,750.00
= = = = = = = = = =
5. Order dated
The
motion further prays that they (respondents represented by Atty. Emmanuel
Agustin) be allowed to adopt the Orders of the Court dated P5,500.00 per square
meter. There being no opposition, the
same is GRANTED.
Records
show that petitioner interposed an appeal from this Order to the Court of
Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 70023.
Petitioner
also appealed to the Court of Appeals from the Order dated P5,500.00 per square meter. The appeal
was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 77668.
Respondents filed their respective appellees’ briefs, except those represented
by Atty. Cesar Cruz. On
Meanwhile,
respondents, represented by Atty. Cesar Cruz, filed a Motion for Execution
of the Order dated P5,500.00 per square meter.
On
After the lapse of more than three (3) years, or on P5,500.00 per square meter
with 12% interest per annum “computed from the date possession of herein
defendants’ properties were delivered to the plaintiff (petitioner).”
On
On
On
December 14, 2004, petitioner then filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition
for Certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order (TRO) to enjoin the trial court from implementing the 1) Order dated May 29, 2001 granting
respondents’ motion for execution of the August 23, 2000 Order; 2) Order dated
November 18, 2004 directing the issuance of a writ of execution; 3) writ of
execution dated November 22, 2004; and 4) Notices of Garnishment dated November
23, 2004 addressed to the National Treasury, the Development Bank of the
Philippines, the Philippine National Bank, and the Veterans Bank of the
Philippines. The petition was docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 87844.
Meanwhile,
on P400.00, the lots being agricultural, when it should be P4,250.00 per square meter as the same lots are classified as
industrial.
In an Order dated
In its Resolution dated
Respondents filed their opposition to petitioner’s initial
Petition for Certiorari dated
On April
27, 2005, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals an Urgent Motion for
Clarification in view of Judge Tac-an’s determination
to continue hearing the case despite his court’s lack of jurisdiction
considering its (petitioner’s) appeal to the appellate court.
On June 3, 2005, the Court of Appeals promulgated a
Resolution directing Judge Tac-an to “forthwith CEASE and DESIST from further
proceeding with Civil Case No. 5447 until further orders from the Honorable
Court.”
However, according to petitioner, Judge Tac-an
still continued hearing the case.
Hence, petitioner
filed with the Court of Appeals a “Petition to Cite Respondent Judge Paterno V.
Tac-an in Contempt,” docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 90796.
These
three cases: CA-G.R. CV No. 77668 (appeal from the Order dated
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion to Dismiss Appeal is
GRANTED. The Petition and
Supplemental Petitions are DISMISSED and the writs of preliminary
injunction are hereby LIFTED. The
‘Petition to Cite Respondent Paterno V. Tac-an In Contempt’ is DENIED
for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Acting on the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari
with prayer for the issuance of a TRO, we issued a Resolution on August 7, 2006
requiring respondents to comment thereon within ten (10) days from notice and
ordering the issuance of a TRO enjoining
the trial court and its agents or representatives
from implementing and enforcing the Orders dated May 29, 2001, November 18,
2004 and November 24, 2004 issued in Civil Case No. 5447, effective immediately
until further orders from this Court.
Pursuant
to our Resolution, respondents Remedios R. Bondoc, et al. filed their
Comment raising the following arguments:
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED NO ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT THE TRIAL
COURT’S ORDER OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED NO ERROR, DID NOT MISAPPREHEND THE
FACTS, NOR COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT’S
ORDER FIXING JUST COMPENSATION WAS IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE,
ESPECIALLY IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNTERVAILING EVIDENCE FOR THE PETITIONER.
For our
resolution are the following issues:
1. Whether the Court
of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal from the trial court’s Order
dated August 15, 2000 setting the fair market value or expropriation price at P5,500.00
per square meter of the expropriated lots;
2. Whether the
3.
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the Order
dated November 24, 2004 granting respondents’ “Motion for Immediate Payment of
Deficiency in the Zonal Valuation” from P400 per square meter to P4,250.00
per square meter; and
4. Whether Judge
Paterno V. Tac-an should be cited in contempt of court for further hearing
Civil Case No. 5447 despite the Resolution dated June 3, 2005 of the Court of
Appeals directing him to cease and desist from doing so.
On the first issue, Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:
Section 1. Subject of
appeal. – An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely
disposes of the case, or of a particular matter
therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
No
appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a motion for new trial or
reconsideration;
(b) An order denying a petition for relief or
any similar motion seeking relief from judgment;
(c)
An interlocutory order;
xxx xxx xxx
The above Rule clearly states that only a judgment or final
order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein
declared by the Rules to be appealable, may be subject of an appeal; and that
no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order.
In resolving whether the trial court’s Order dated August
15, 2000 is appealable, we should first determine whether it is a final order
or merely interlocutory.
In Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[5]
this Court distinguished a final order or resolution from an interlocutory one,
thus:
A final judgment or order is one
that finally disposes of a case leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in
respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis
of the evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically what the rights
and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a
judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, of res
judicata or prescription. Once
rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or
determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court
except to await the parties’ next move (which, among others, may consist of the
filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, or the taking of an
appeal) and ultimately, of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once
it becomes ‘final’ or, to use the established and more distinctive term, ‘final
and executory.’
xxx xxx xxx
Conversely, an order that does not
finally dispose of the case, and does not end the court’s task of adjudicating
the parties’ contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as
regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done
by the Court, is ‘interlocutory,’ e.g., an order denying a motion to
dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules, or granting a motion for extension of time
to file a pleading, or authorizing amendment thereof, or granting or denying
applications for postponement, or production or inspection of documents or
things, etc. Unlike a ‘final’ judgment
or order, which is appealable, as above pointed out, an ‘interlocutory’ order
may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually
be taken from the final judgment rendered in this case.
The rule is founded on
considerations of orderly procedure, to forestall useless appeals and avoid
undue inconvenience to the appealing party by having to assail orders as they
are promulgated by the court, when all such orders may be contested in a single
appeal.
Here, the assailed Order dated P5,500.00 per square
meter. The Order is not an adjudication
on the merits and does not declare the rights and obligations of the parties.
Nor does it rule who between the parties is right. In other words, the trial court has yet to
decide the case on its merits. Clearly,
the challenged Order being interlocutory is not appealable.
As aptly
stated by the Court of Appeals:
Even if we consider the Order dated
1. The commissioners submitted their Partial Report on the just
compensation of the properties involved, recommending a valuation of P4,800.00 per square meter.
2. The just compensation for the properties should be lower than the
foregoing valuation.
3. The lands are agricultural in nature. They are not being used for commercial or
industrial purposes.
In the aforesaid “Comment on Commissioners’ Partial Report,” PPA did
not even attach any document why “(t) he just compensation for the properties
should be lower” and failed to present evidence that the lands involved “are
agricultural in nature” or “are not being used for commercial or industrial
purposes” in the face of the testimony by defendants-appellees’ witness, Mr. Oscianas, that the highest and best use of the property is
industrial (TSN dated 18 July 2000, pp. 15-17).
The Court notes that even before the filing by the PPA of its complaint
for expropriation on 14 October 1999, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has
already promulgated in 1997 a zonal valuation for the properties located in
Batangas which classified defendants-appellees’ properties as industrial and
agricultural. In other words, PPA’s arguments are mere legal conclusions devoid of any
factual justification.
The Land Valuation Report of the PPA Land Acquisition Committee, tax
declarations and zonal valuations that the PPA urges this Court to consider are
mere attachments to their complaint which were not marked, much less formally
offered before the trial court. Nobody
from the PPA even identified these documents.
Rule 132, Section 34 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that:
“The Court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. x x x.”
Even assuming that PPA’s evidence can be
considered to form part of the record despite the lack of formal offer of
evidence, the same can only serve as factors to be considered. Thus, in Section 5 (Standards for the
Assessment of the Value of the Land Subject of Expropriation Proceedings or
Negotiated Sale) of Republic Act No. 8974, the Court may consider the following
relevant standards “among other well-established factors,” to wit:
In order to facilitate the determination of just compensation, the
Court may consider, among other well established factors, the following
relevant standards:
(a) The classification and use for which the property is suited;
(b) The developmental costs for improving the land;
(c) The value declared by the owners;
(d) The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity;
(e) The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or
demolition of certain improvements on the land and for the value of
improvements thereon;
(f) The size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of
the land;
(g) The price of the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as
well as documentary evidence presented; and
(h) Such facts and events as to enable the affected property owners to
have sufficient funds to acquire similarly-situated lands of the government,
and thereby rehabilitate themselves as early as possible.
We have examined the Order dated
There is likewise no merit in PPA’s
contention that the lack of pre-trial voided the proceedings. First. PPA is estopped from raising lack of
pre-trial because it failed to set the case for pre-trial which was its duty
under Rule 18, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Second. In the case of Spouses Martinez v. Hon. De
la Merced, et al., 174 SCRA 182, 189 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that “(a)
party’s failure to object to the absence of a pre-trial is deemed a waiver of
his right thereto” and that the “trial court’s inadvertent failure to calendar
the case for a pre-trial or a preliminary conference cannot render the
proceedings illegal or void ab initio.” In the present case, PPA failed to object to
the absence of a pre-trial. Third.
There is no showing that the trial court disregarded the provisions of
Rule 67 of the Rules of Court specifically Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 which to Our
mind already serve the purposes of pre-trial in expediting the ascertainment of
facts. Under the aforesaid provisions,
the trial court appoints not more than three (3) competent and disinterested
persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to the trial court the just
compensation for the property sought to be taken. Evidence may be introduced by either party
before the commissioners and the commissioners shall assess the consequential
damages to the property as well as consequential benefits derived by the owner
from the property. Thereupon, the
commissioners make full and accurate report of all their proceedings, which report
the court may, after all interested parties shall have been given the time to
file their objections thereto and after hearing shall have been conducted,
either accept and render judgment in accordance therewith or for cause shown,
recommit said report to the commissioners for further report of facts; or set
aside said report and appoint new commissioners; or accept said report in part
and reject it in part, and ultimately make such order or render such judgment
as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his
right of expropriation and to the defendant just compensation for the property
so taken.
Relative to the second issue, the Court of Appeals ruled
that the Petition for Certiorari can not be sustained for having been
filed late. Petitioner is assailing the
first Order dated
Moreover, even if certiorari is in order, we hold
that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it issued a
writ of execution implementing the Order dated
Anent
the third issue, in their “Motion for Immediate Payment of Deficiency in the
Zonal Valuation,” respondents alleged that the zonal value of P400.00
per square meter of their expropriated lots deposited by petitioner and paid to
them was made on the basis of petitioner’s classification of their lots as
agricultural. But actually, they are
classified as industrial with zonal valuation of not less that P4,250.00 per square meter as shown by:
1) Zonal valuation of real properties
in
2) Executive Order Nos. 385 and 431
issued by then President Corazon C. Aquino on December 19, 1989 and October 19,
1990 declaring the subject lots as industrial/port zone; and
3) The Comprehensive Land Use and
Zoning Plan prepared by the Batangas City Planning and Development Office on
May 22, 1993 reclassifying the lots as industrial port zone.
In its
objection to respondents’ Formal Offer of Evidence in support of their motion,
petitioner claimed that their documentary evidence are
irrelevant because Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8974[6]
“speaks of the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s, not the local governments’ zonal
valuation as basis for the payment of the provisional deposit to the land
owner.”
Section
4 of R.A. No. 8974 provides inter alia that the amount equivalent to the
sum of one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the property based on the
current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue x x x shall be paid to
the owner of the property.
It bears
stressing that one of the documents relied upon by the trial court was the
zonal valuation of the properties in
On this
point, the Court of Appeals held:
We also note that in the Supplemental Order, herein respondent Judge
merely used the zonal valuation for industrial lots at Barangay Sta. Clara at P4,250.00
per square meter instead of the higher zonal valuation for industrial lots for
Provincial Road to Manila, Calicanto-Junction Hilltop
at P6,080.00 or at M.H. del Pilar-Calicanto-Junction
at P9,500.00, which conforms to the guidelines in the implementation of
zonal valuation of real properties for RDO No. 58-Batangas City,
notwithstanding the fact that defendants-appellees’ properties are located in
Barangay Calicanto itself. In other words, herein respondent Judge
conservatively applied the lower zonal valuation in enforcing the statutory
requirement of requiring the payment of the current relevant zonal valuation of
the BIR upon filing of the complaint.
It
should be emphasized that the determination of zonal valuation involves
questions of fact or evaluation of evidence which is not proper in a petition
for certiorari. The only issue
involved therein is whether the trial court, in issuing the questioned order,
acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion which does not
exist in this case.
As to
the last issue, referring to the petition to cite respondent Judge Tac-an in contempt of court, the Court of Appeals held:
With respect to the “Petition to Cite
Respondent Paterno V. Tac-an in Contempt,” the same must be denied for lack of
merit. According to PPA, herein
respondent Judge committed indirect contempt of Court when he conducted a
hearing on
At any
rate, the petition to cite Judge Tac-an in contempt of
court has become moot and academic. He
has resigned compulsorily from the Judiciary.
In fine, since what was appealed by petitioner was the trial
court’s interlocutory Order dated P5,500.00 per square meter of the expropriated lots, which is
dismissible, then the various Orders directing petitioner to pay respondents
just compensation at P5,500.00 per square meter have become final and
executory. Obviously, respondents have communality of
interest and rights which are interwoven.
Consequently, it is the trial court’s ministerial duty to implement the
said Orders, except the Order dated
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The assailed Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in these consolidated cases: CA-G.R. CV No. 77668, CA-G.R. SP No.
87844, and CA-G.R. SP No. 90796 is AFFIRMED.
The TRO
we issued on
The
trial court is directed to implement its final and executory Order dated
P5,500.00
per square meter of their expropriated lots, with 12% interest per
annum from the date of petitioner’s entry on the lots or on
Likewise, the trial court is directed to implement the
following final and executory Orders requiring petitioner to pay
respondents just compensation at P5,500.00 per
square meter pursuant to its Order dated
1. Order dated
2. Order dated
3. Order dated
4. Order dated
It is understood that the zonal value per square meter of
the expropriated lots, classified as industrial, is increased from P400.00
to P4,250.00 per square meter. The initial deposit paid by petitioner to
respondents shall be deducted from the total amount of just compensation
payable to them.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.
[2] Presided by Judge Paterno V. Tac-an.
[3] Expanding and Delineating the Batangas Port Zone and Placing the same Under the Administrative Jurisdiction of the Philippine Ports Authority.
[4] Further Expanding and Increasing the Coverage of the Batangas Port Zone.
[5] No. L-60036,
[6] An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes.
[7] Sec. 10, Rule 67, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended; Benguet Consolidated, Inc. v. Republic of the
Philippines, No. L-71412, August 15, 1986, 143 SCRA 466; Republic of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002, 383 SCRA
611, 623, citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
234 SCRA 78 (1994).
[8]