Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Petitioners, - versus - SPS. TAN SONG BOK and JOSEFINA S. TAN, SPS. JUNIOR
SY and JOSEFINA TAN, EDGARDO TAN, NENITA TAN, RICARDO TAN, JR., and ALBERT
TAN, R.S. AGRI-DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ERIBERTO H. GOMEZ married to
Wilhelmina Rodriguez, EDGARDO H. GOMEZ, ELOISA H. GOMEZ, ERLINDA GOMEZ married to
Camilo Manaloto, CLEOFE CONSUNJI-HIZON, MA. ASUNCION H. DIZON married to
Benjamin Dizon, RAMON L. HIZON, married
to JOSE MARIA C. HIZON married to Ma. Sarah Sarmiento, MA. FREIDESVINDA C. HIZON married to Manuel Yoingko, ROBERTO C. HIZON, ARTHUR C. H. DAVID married to Consuelo Goseco, ELOISA P. HIZON married
to Domingo C. Gomez, MA. MILAGROS C. HIZON, and PRESENTACION
C. HIZON, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 191448 Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, PEREZ,* and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: November 16, 2011 |
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Questioned in this petition for
review is the February 19, 2010 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification the April 14,
2004 Decision[2] of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles City (RTC) in Civil Case No.
9956, expropriating eight (8) lots located in the province of Pampanga owned by
the respondents.
The Facts
The factual milieu and
procedural antecedents were succinctly recited in the CA decision as follows:
On
|
OWNER |
TCT NO. |
AFFECTED AREA (in sq. m) |
|
Sps. Tan Song Bok & Josefina So-Tan, Josefina
Tan married to Junior Sy, Edgardo Tan, Nenita Tan, Ricardo tan, Jr. and
Albert Tan |
101012 |
3440 |
|
Sps. Tan Song Bok
& Josefina So-Tan |
82425 |
16827 |
|
Sps. Tan Song Bok
& Josefina So-Tan |
395874-R |
862 |
|
Sps. Tan Song Bok
& Josefina So-Tan |
398835-R |
15 |
|
R.S.
Agri-Development Corporation |
80483 |
35824 |
|
Eriberto H. Gomez, married to Wilhelmina
Rodriguez, Edgardo H. Gomez, Eloisa H. Gomez, Erlinda H. Gomez, married to
Camilo Manaloto |
92065 |
10052 |
|
Cleofe Consunji-Hizon, Ma. Asuncion H. Dizon
married to Benjamin Dizon, Ramon L. Hizon married to Caridad Garchitorena,
Ma. Lourdes C. Hizon, married to John Sackett, Jose Maria C. Hizon, married
to Ma. Sarah Sarmiento, Ma.
Fredesvinda C. Hizon, married to Manuel Yoingko, Roberto C. Hizon, Arthur
Hizon, Ma. Salome Hizon, Ma. Milagros C. Hizon, Presentacion C. Hizon, and
Frederick C. Hizon, Ma. Engracia H. David, Antonio H. David, married to
Consuelo Goseco, Eloisa P. Hizon, married to Domingo C. Gomez, Eriberto H.
Gomez, married to Wilhelmina Rodriguez, Edgardo H. Gomez, Eloisa H. Gomez,
and Erlinda H. Gomez, married to Camilo Manaloto |
91441 |
439 |
|
Ramon L. Hizon, married to Caridad Garchitorena,
Ma. Asuncion H. Dizon, married to Benjamin Dizon, Ma. Lourdes C. Hizon,
married to John Sackkett, Jose Maria C. Hizon, married to Sarah Sarmiento,
Ma. Fredesvinda C. Hizon, married to Manuel Yoingko, Roberto C. Hizon, Arthur
C. Hizon, Ma. Salome C. Hizon, Ma. Milagros C. Hizon, Presentacion C. Hizon
and Frederick C. Hizon. |
92058 |
4796 |
On
In view of the foregoing consideration, and after a final deliberation,
the members of the committee jointly recommends as follows:
1.
The amount of ₱3,750.00 per sq. meter for Lot 99-V-2-C-4, owned by Tan Song Bok, et al;
2.
The amount of ₱3,750.00 per sq. meter for
3.
The amount of ₱3,650.00 per sq. meter for
4.
The amount of ₱3,650.00 per sq. meter for
5.
The amount of ₱4,400.00 per sq. meter for
6.
The amount of ₱3,900.00 per sq. meter for
7.
The amount of ₱3,900.00 per sq. meter for
8.
The amount of ₱3,900.00 per sq. meter for
all located in the
to be the just
compensation to be paid by the plaintiff to the corresponding defendants in
this case, which is reasonable and fair enough to the advantage of both parties
considering the devaluation of pesos and the development of the vicinity of the
properties of the defendants, which are the subject matter of the instant case.
Since the amount of provisional value deposited by the plaintiff is only
the amount equivalent to ₱200.00 per square
meter, it is recommended by the committee that the plaintiff deposit the
equivalent of the remaining percentage per square meter, recommended by the
committee, for the respective parcels of lands owned by the respective
defendants in this case.
On November 18, 2002, plaintiff-appellant filed its Comment/Objection to
the Consolidated Committee Report arguing that the amounts recommended by the
committee did not constitute fair and just equivalent of the properties sought
to be expropriated because there was no sufficient basis for the recommended
prices as no document or any deed of sale involving similar property was
presented to show the current selling price and that the commissioners did not
consider other factors such as tax declarations, zonal valuation and actual use
of the lands. It likewise argued that the committee report was based mainly on
the personal opinion of two of its commissioners when they allegedly conducted
an ocular inspection of the properties.
On February 3, 2003, defendants Sps. Tan Song Bok, Josefina S. Tan, Sps.
Junior Sy and Josefina Tan, Edgardo Tan, Nenita Tan, Ricardo Tan, Jr., Albert
Tan, and R.S. Agri-Development Corporation, through counsel, filed their Reply
arguing therein that the Consolidated Committee Report clearly stated the basis
used to determine and arrive at the recommended just compensation, such as; (i)
the zonal value as evidenced by the certification from the BIR submitted by
plaintiff; (ii) the certification issued by BIR containing the price of the
latest recorded sale of property in the area; (iii) Verification with the
proper offices of Magalang, Mabalacat and Angeles City; (iv) ocular inspection.
Further, they argued that the propriety of the actions of the committee are
supported by Section 5, Republic Act No. 8974, and that both Mr. Alberto Y.
Murillo, as the long incumbent City Assessor of Angeles City, and Mr. Rommel
Jose DG Suarez, are both experts in the said price determination as their
findings were surely based on their knowledge, expertise and experience in the
field of real property assessment and real estate brokering. In the same way,
defendants-appellees Hizons and Gomezes, in their Reply/Opposition filed on
The Decision of
the RTC
On April 14, 2004, after
due hearing, the RTC rendered a decision declaring that the petitioner has the
right to condemn for public use the affected properties of the respondents upon
payment of just compensation. In this regard, the trial court adopted the
findings and recommendations of the Committee on Appraisals[3]
(the Committee) in its Consolidated Committee Report (the Report)[4]
dated September 20, 2003, as being reflective of the true, fair and just
compensation for the expropriation of the affected properties of the
respondents. The RTC ruled, among others, that the payment shall be in the
following manner:
1.
The amount of ₱3,750.00 per sq. meter for Lot 99-V-2-C-4, owned by Tan Song Bok, et al;
(T.C.T. No. 101012)
xxx
Total Area Affected 3, 440 sq. m
Compensation: ₱12,900,000.00
Less: Partial Payment
per Order dated
Compensation Due: ₱12,212,000.00
2.
The amount of ₱3,750.00 per sq. meter for
Xxx
Total Area Affected 16, 827 sq. m
Compensation: ₱63,101,250.00
Less: Partial Payment
per Order dated
Compensation Due: ₱59,735,850.00
3.
The amount of ₱3,650.00 per sq. meter for
xxx
Total Area Affected 862 sq. m
Compensation: ₱3,146,300.00
Less: Partial Payment
per Order dated
Compensation Due: ₱2,973,900.00
4.
The amount of ₱3,650.00 per sq. meter for
xxx
Total Area Affected 15 sq. m
Compensation: ₱54,750.00
Less: Partial Payment
per Order dated
Compensation Due: ₱51,750.00
5.
The amount of ₱4,400.00 per sq. meter for
xxx
Total Area Affected 35, 824 sq. m
Compensation: ₱157,625,600.00
Less: Partial Payment
per Order dated
Compensation Due: ₱150,460,800.00
6.
The amount of ₱3,900.00 per sq. meter for
xxx
Total Area Affected 10,052 sq. m
Compensation: ₱39,202,800.00
Less: Partial Payment
per Order dated
Compensation Due: ₱37,192,400.00
7.
The amount of ₱3,900.00 per sq. meter for
xxx
Total Area Affected 439 sq. m
Compensation: ₱1,712,100.00
Less: Partial Payment
per Order dated
Compensation Due: ₱1,624,300.00
8.
The amount of ₱3,900.00 per sq. meter for
xxx
Total Area Affected 4,797 sq. m
Compensation: ₱18,708,300.00
Less: Partial Payment
per Order dated
Compensation Due: ₱17,749,100.00
Not in conformity with the RTC decision, the petitioner
elevated the matter to the CA anchored mainly on the argument that the just
compensation recommended by the committee was based on insufficient evidence. According
to the petitioner, the appraised values recommended by the committee did not
approximate the actual value of the properties at the time of taking, but were
purely speculative based on hearsays and gratuitous personal opinions. Hence,
the RTC should not have completely adopted its recommendation in determining
the just compensation for the subject properties.
The Decision of the
CA
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is hereby MODIFIED
as follows:
1.
Plaintiff-appellant should pay defendants R. Hizon,
et al. just compensation for the affected area of 4, 796 sq. m. instead of 4,797
sq. m. in the amount of ₱18,704,400.00;
2.
The payment of the just compensation is immediately
executory upon receipt of this decision;
3.
Plaintiff shall pay 6% interest per annum reckoned
from the date the trial court rendered the decision on
SO ORDERED.
The CA stated , among others, that the
RTC did not rely solely on the appraisal report submitted by the Committee but it
also conducted hearings for the purpose of receiving the parties evidence. It
added that in order to determine the just compensation of the subject
properties, the members of the Committee did not just confine themselves
to the documents submitted by the parties but made verifications from the
proper offices of Magalang, Mabalacat and Angeles City and conducted ocular
inspections of the subject lots. The tax declarations, BIR zonal valuation
and the deeds of sale presented by the petitioner were considered as only among
the many factors for the determination of just compensation. Although such were some of the indices of the
fair market value of real estate, they could not be the only bases of just
compensation in expropriation cases.
Finding the CA decision unacceptable,
the petitioner filed this petition for review raising the following
ISSUE
In advocacy of its position, the petitioner
argues that it was deprived of its right to due process when it was not given an
opportunity to present its evidence by the Committee. The petitioner claims
that the committee did not conduct any hearing to enable the parties to present
their respective evidence. Instead, they based the Report on documents
submitted by the parties, verifications from offices, ocular inspections and
local market conditions, and unsubstantiated statements as to the highest and
best use of the properties, and the devaluation of the peso.
The petitioner claims that the
RTC merely conducted a clarificatory hearing wherein the commissioners were asked
questions on the Report, when it should have conducted further proceedings to
allow the reception and presentation of evidence needed in the determination of
just compensation. Furthermore, the Report failed to state what particular
documents were used as references for the determination of just compensation. No
documentary evidence was presented by any of the parties before the preparation
of the Report since the Committee did not set any hearing for the
reception and presentation of evidence. The report neither stated the specific
deed of sale used by the Committee as reference for the determination of the
fair market value of the subject properties. The concept of devaluation was
likewise missaplied in the Report.
Finally, the petitioner contends that
since just compensation is based on the price or value of the property at the
time it is taken, the value of the subject properties at the time of the filing
of the complaint on
Respondents
position
The respondents counter that the
petitioner was not deprived of its right to due process. After the examination
of the commissioners, the petitioner was allowed to present its evidence in
support of the expropriation case. Thus, it presented the testimonies of Cleofe
Umlas, Administrative Officer of the Bureau of Internal Revenue; Liberato L.
Navarro, Revenue District Officer, Revenue District No. 21, Pampanga; James
Suarez, Bureau of Internal Revenue District Officer; and Ronnie Vergara of the
Register of Deeds of Angeles City. After considering the pieces of evidence
presented by the opposing parties, the RTC rendered its decision adopting the
valuation recommended by the Committee as reflective of the true, fair and just
compensation for the respondents properties and as the reasonable replacement
value thereof.
The respondents stressed that the RTC
did not merely rely on the Report but it also conducted hearings for the
purpose of receiving the parties evidence. Moreover, the Committee members did
not just confine themselves to the documents submitted by the parties but made
verifications from the proper offices of Magalang, Mabalacat and
Hence, the petitioners claim that the
determination of just compensation did not have factual and legal basis is
unwarranted. The Report was based on all the evidence submitted by the parties,
the verifications made from the proper offices and the ocular inspections. The
findings as to the valuation of the subject properties need no longer be
disturbed because there was no showing that the Committee members assigned
by the trial court acted with abuse of discretion in the evaluation of the
evidence submitted to them or misappreciated the evidence.
On the other hand, the price of
₱200.00 per square meter offered by the petitioner is unjust and
unreasonable considering the prevailing value of the properties in the affected
areas and the development of the vicinity of the properties at the time of
taking. The petitioners price estimate is prejudicial to them because the
value of the affected properties has obviously increased.
The Court shall resolve two (2) principal
issues in this case: 1)
whether or not petitioner was deprived of its right to due process; and 2)
whether or not the RTC and the CA had sufficient basis in arriving at the
questioned amount of just compensation of
the subject properties.
After a careful review of the
records, the Court resolves the first issue in the negative and the second
issue in the affirmative.
On the first issue, the Court finds without
basis petitioners argument that it was not given the opportunity to present
evidence by the Committee.
Records show that when the RTC issued
its June 10, 2002 Order of expropriation, it created a committee on appraisal
which was composed of three (3) commissioners who would determine and report
the just compensation for the properties subject of expropriation. Upon
submission of the Report by the Committee on
During the clarificatory hearing, the
three (3) appointed commissioners, Alberto Murillo, Angeles City Assessor;
Rommel DG. Suarez, private realtor; and Mrs. Anita G. Nuag, Acting Branch
Clerk of Court of the RTC, testified and were subjected to cross-examination.
Thereafter, the petitioner presented
its evidence in support of its positions consisting of the testimonies of
Cleofe Umlas, Administrative Office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue; Liberato
L. Navarro, Revenue District Officer, Revenue District No. 21, Pampanga; James
Suarez, Bureau of Internal Revenue District Officer; and Ronnie Vergara,
Register of Deeds of Angeles City.
Clearly, the petitioner was afforded
due process. The pleadings it submitted and the testimonial evidence presented during
the several hearings conducted all prove that the petitioner was given its day
in court. The Court notes that the RTC acceded to the petitioners request,
over the respondents objection, for the reconvening of the Committee for
reception of evidence and further proceedings. It also heard and allowed both
sides to present evidence during the clarificatory hearings and rendered a
decision based on the evidence presented.
On the second issue, the Court reiterates the rule, even in
expropriation cases, that questions of facts are beyond the pale of Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court as a petition for review may only raise questions of law. Moreover, factual
findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, are generally binding on this Court.[5]
In another
expropriation case, it was stressed that only questions of law may be raised in petitions
to review decisions of the CA filed before this Court. The factual findings of the CA affirming
those of the trial court are final and conclusive. They cannot be reviewed by
this Court, save only in the following circumstances: (1) when the factual
conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and
conjectures; (2) when the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when
the CA went beyond the issues of the case in making its findings, which are further contrary
to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the
CA's findings are
contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the conclusions do not cite the
specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the
petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed
by the respondents; and (10) when the CA's findings of fact,
supposedly premised on the absence of evidence, are contradicted by the
evidence on record.[6]
In this case, the petitioner has
failed to show that the present case falls under any of the aforecited
exceptions. An evaluation of the facts and evidence presented does not persuade
the Court to deviate from the findings of fact of the two courts below. The
lower courts properly appreciated the evidence submitted by both parties as
regards the true value of the expropriated lots at the time of taking.
Eminent
domain is the power of the State to take private property for public use. It is
an inherent power of State as it is a power necessary for the States
existence; it is a power the State cannot do without. As an inherent power, it
does not need at all to be embodied in the Constitution; if it is mentioned at
all, it is solely for purposes of limiting what is otherwise an unlimited
power. The limitation is found in the Bill of Rights that part of the
Constitution whose provisions all aim at the protection of individuals against
the excessive exercise of governmental powers.
Section
9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution (which reads "No private property
shall be taken for public use without just compensation.") provides two essential
limitations to the power of eminent domain, namely, that (1) the purpose of
taking must be for public use and (2) just compensation must be given to the
owner of the private property.
It
is not accidental that Section 9 specifies that compensation should be
"just" as the safeguard is there to ensure a balance property is
not to be taken for public use at the expense of private interests; the public,
through the State, must balance the injury that the taking of property causes
through compensation for what is taken, value for value.
Nor
is it accidental that the Bill of Rights is interpreted liberally in favor of
the individual and strictly against the government. The protection of the
individual is the reason for the Bill of Rights being; to keep the exercise of
the powers of government within reasonable bounds is what it seeks.
The
concept of "just compensation" is not new to Philippine
constitutional law, but is not original to the
Constitutionally,
"just compensation" is the sum equivalent to the market value of the
property, broadly described as the price fixed by the seller in open market in
the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition, or the fair
value of the property as between the one who receives and the one who desires
to sell, it being fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government.
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property
taken from its owner by the expropriator. It has been repeatedly stressed by
this Court that the true measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss.
The word "just" is used to modify the meaning of the word
"compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be given for
the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.[7]
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8974
(An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-Of-Way, Site or Location for
National Government Infrastracture Projects and for Other Purposes) provides,
as follows:
Section 5.
Standards for the Assessment of the
Value of the Land Subject of Expropriation Proceedings or Negotiated
(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 improvement on the land and for the value of improvements thereon;
(f)
Th[e] 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 approximate areas as
those required from them by the government, and thereby rehabilitate themselves
as early as possible.
Regarding the findings of a committee,
it has been written that:
The duty of the court in considering the
commissioners report is to satisfy itself that just compensation will be made
to the defendant by its final judgment in the matter, and to fulfill its duty
in this respect, the court will be obliged to exercise its discretion in
dealing with the report as the particular circumstances of the case may
require. Rule 67, Section 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly shows
that the trial court has the discretion to act upon the commissioners report
in any of the following ways: (1) it
may accept the same and render judgment therewith; or (2) for cause shown, it may [a] recommit the report to
the commissioners for further report of facts; or [b] set aside the report and
appoint new commissioners; or [c] accept the report in part and reject it in
part; and it may 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.[8]
[Emphasis supplied]
In the case at bench, the Report reads
as follows:
In order to arrive at a fair and
reasonable appraisal of the just compensation of the properties in question to
be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, the committee did not confine
itself with the documents submitted to the court by both parties, but made
verifications from the proper offices of Magalang, Mabalacat and Angeles City
and on two (2) instances conducted ocular inspection of the premises in
question to satisfy itself of the actual condition/situation of the subject
premises.
From the ocular inspection, the committee
found out that:
The subject matter of the instant case
are parcels of land affected by the impending relocation of the North
Expressway, Angeles City Entry/Exit and the widening/expansion along the said
expressway, subject matter of this case, located in the City of Angeles,
Municipality of Mabalacat, Pampanga, more particularly situated within the
vicinity of the North Expressway and Provincial Road leading to Magalang,
Pampanga as well as Don Bonifacio Blvd.
Having inspected the properties and
investigated the local market conditions, and having given consideration to the
extent, description of properties, character, location, identification, neighborhood
data, facilities and utilities, progression/regression, increasing and
diminishing returns, highest and best use of its properties, and varying
development in the immediate vicinity of each propert[y], the two (2)
commissioners in the persons of the City Assessor of Angeles City, Mr. Alberto
Y. Murillo, and the licensed real estate broker, Mr. Rommel Suarez, submitted
to the chairperson, their respective appraisal, xxx.
The Court affirms the ruling of the
RTC and the CA that the Report is founded on evidence. The uniform findings of fact upon the question of just
compensation reached by the CA and the RTC are entitled to the greatest
respect. They are binding on the Court in the absence of a strong
showing by the petitioner that the courts below erred in appreciating the
established facts and in drawing inferences from such facts.[9]
This Court would like to stress that
the petitioner is silent on the undisputed fact that no less than its witness, Cleofe
Umlas, Administrative Officer of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, testified and
certified that the prevailing fair market value of land located at Pulung
Maragul,
The petitioners tax declarations,
the BIR zonal valuation and the deeds of sale it presented are not the only proof
of the fair value of properties. Zonal valuation is just one of the indices of
the fair market value of real estate. By
itself, this index cannot be the sole basis of just compensation in
expropriation cases.[10]
Various factors come into play in the
valuation of specific properties singled out for expropriation. The values assigned
by provincial assessors are usually uniform for very wide areas covering
several barrios or even an entire town with the exception of the poblacion. Individual differences are
never taken into account. The value of land is based on such generalities as
its possible cultivation for rice, corn, coconuts or other crops. Very often land described as cogonal has
been cultivated for generations. Buildings are described in terms of only two
or three classes of building materials and estimates of areas are more often
inaccurate than correct. Tax values can serve as guides but cannot be absolute
substitutes for just compensation.[11]
In
view of the foregoing, the Court upholds the CA decision except on the point
that it is immediately executory. Any disposition in this case becomes
executory only after its finality.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED.
Accordingly, the
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Courts Division.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
*
Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M.
Perlas-Bernabe, per Special Order No. 1152 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 54-73 (Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos)
[2]
[3] Created by the RTC in its June 10, 2002 Order, composed of OIC/Branch Clerk of Court Mrs. Anita G. Nunag, as Chairperson; City Assessor, Mr. Alberto Y. Murillo and Licensed Real Estate Broker, Mr. Rommel DG. Suarez, as members, id. at 239-240.
[4]
[5] National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 479 Phil. 850 (2004).
[6] PNOC v. Maglasang, G.R. No. 155407,
[7] Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the
[8] National Power Corporation v. Purefoods
Corporation, G.R.No. 160725,
[9] EPZA v. Jose Pulido, G.R. No. 188995,
[10]LECA Realty Corp. v. Republic, G.R.
155605,
[11] EPZA v. Dulay, G.R.No. L-59603,