f'.

')

31\epublic of tbe tlbilippine1,

g,upreme <!Court
;ifflanila

SECOND DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 227960

[represented by the DEPARMENT
OF PlJBLIC WORKS AND Members:
HIGHWJ\YS (DPWH)],
Petitioner, CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
CAGUIOA,
- versus - J. REYES, JR., and
LAZARO-JAVIER, JJ.
Spouses LORENZANA JUAN
DARLUCIO AND Promulgated:
COSME
DARLUCIO,
2 4 JUL 2019
Respondents. ______ _ l\\l\~~1~ ____ x
x--------------------------

DECISION

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

Antecedents

Complaint for Expropriation

On November 23, 2007, petitioner Republic of the Philippines,

represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH),
filed against "John Doe GGGGG" the complaint below for expropriation
of a parcel of land situated in Barangay Ugong, Valenzuela City, measuring
five hundred twenty-seven (527) square meters. It is covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. B-26619. The Republic sought to expropriate
the land for the construction of the its C-5 Northern Link Road Project,

t
1
Decision 2 G.R. No. 227960

Segment 8.1. running through the stretch of Mindanao Avenue, Quezon City
up to the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX), Valenzuela City.

The Republic essentially alleged that the land was unoccupied and did
not bear any improvements; despite diligent effort, the owner/s of the land
could not be ascertained or located. The current zonal valuation of the land
was P3,450.00 per square meter. It sought to expropriate four hundred
thirteen (413) square meters of the land.

The Order of Expropriation

On September 9, 2008, the trial court issued an order of expropriation

and directed petitioner to deposit with the Office of the Clerk of Court
(OCC) the amount of Pl,424,850.00 equivalent to one hundred percent
(100%) of the zonal valuation of the land. Petitioner complied.

Subsequently, respondents Spouses Lorenzana Juan Darlucio and

Cosme Darlucio were named as owner-defendants in the expropriation
complaint.

Answer

In their Answer, Spouses Darlucio signified their conformity to the

expropriation of the land for the indicated public purpose. They admitted
that the zonal value of the land was P3,450.00 per square meter, albeit they
demanded that the amount of just compensation be based on the prevailing
market value of the similarly situated properties. Since the area had been
categorized as industrial, the prevailing market value of the land should
range from Pl0,000.00 to P15,000.00 per square meter. •

The trial court subsequently constituted the Board of Commissioners

to ascertain the amount of just compensation.

Based on the parties' respective evidence, the result of its own

research on the classification and value of the land, the Board recommended
the amount of P15,000.00 per square meter as just compensation on the land.
According to the Board, the amount was based on the Hobart case wherein
expropriated properties situated within the Hobart Village were prized at
P15,000.00 per square meter. These properties lie right in front of
respondents' property.

The Republic opposed the recommendation. It argued that the

recommendation relied solely on Hobart and completely disregarded the
evidence on record pertaining to the property's actual use, classification,
size, area, and physical condition. Prior to this action, it had already
expropriated 80.50 square meters of the land at only P2,000.00 per square

~
t

Decision 3 G.R. No. 227960

meter. The land was exclusively residential. The Board also allegedly
disregarded the presence of informal settlers in the surrounding areas.

Respondents, on the other hand, agreed with the Board's

recommendation. They averred that it would already be difficult for them to
acquire another property in the same area of the same size.

The Trial Court's Ruling

By Decision dated May 16, 2014, 1 the trial court fixed the amount of
just compensation at PlS,000.00 per square meter directed the Republic to
perform its corresponding obligation pertaining to the property, viz:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered fixing the just

compensation of the 413 square meters out of the 527 square meters lot
(TCT No. B-26619) at Php6,195,000.00 (413 sq. meters x Php15,000.00)
and authorizing the payment thereof by the plaintiff to the defendants-
spouses for the property condemned deducting the provisional deposit of
Pl,424,850.00 previously made and subject to the payment of all unpaid
real property taxes and other relevant taxes by the defendants-spouses up
to the taking of the property by plaintiff, if there be any.

The plaintiff is directed to pay interest at the _rate (of) 12% per
annum on the amount of deposit of Phpl,424,850.00 from the time of the
filing of the complaint on November 23, 2007 up to the time that the said
amount was deposited in court by the plaintiff on December 16, 2008 and
to pay the interest rate of 12% per annum on the unpaid balance of just
compensation of Php4,770,150.00 (Php6,195,000.00 - Phpl,424,850.00)
computed from the time of the filing of the complaint until the plaintiff
fully pays the balance.

The plaintiff is also directed to pay the members of the Board as

commissioner's fee the amount of Php3,000.00 each, the amount of
Php5Q2,500.00 as consequential damages and Php50,000.00 as attorney's
fees.

For the transfer of the title of the property from the defendants-
spouses to the plaintiff, the payment of the capital gains tax shall be at the
expense of the defendants-spouses while the payment of (the) transfer tax
and other related fees to be paid to the City Government of Valenzuela
and the Register of Deeds of Valenzuela City shall be at the expense of the
plaintiff.

Let a certified true copy of this decision be forwarded to the Office

of the Register of Deeds of Valenzuela City for the latter to annotate this
decision in the Transfer Certificate of Title No. B-26619 registered in the
name of the defendants-spouses.

SO ORDERED. 2

1
Rollo, pp. 65-69.
2
Id at 69.

j
Decision 4 G.R. No. 227960

The trial court noted that the amount of P15,000.00 per square meter
represented the fair market value of the property which the Republic failed
to refute by any countervailing evidence.

The Court of Appeals' Ruling

On appeal,3 the Court of Appeals affinned with modification through

its assailed Decision dated May 11, 2016, 4 viz:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The

May 16, 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 172,
Valenzuela City in Civil Case No. 205-V-07 is hereby AFFIRMED with
the following MODIFICATIONS:
•
1. The interest rate on the unpaid balance of the just
compensation shall be 12% per annum from the time of taking
on November 23, 2007 until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum
from July 1, 2013 until finality of this Decision. Thereafter, the
principal amount due as adjusted by interest shall likewise earn
interest at 6% per annum until fully paid; and

2. The award of attorney's fees and the imposition of "12%

interest per annum on the amount deposited in court from the
time of filing the complaint up to the time it was deposited" are
hereby DELETED.

All other aspects of the assailed Decision stand.

SO ORDERED. 5

The Court of Appeals held that the satellite map on record showed
that the land was located near Hobart Village. Thus, the final judicial
determination of just compensation on the property in Hobart, i.e.
P15,000.00 per square meter is material to the determination of the amount
of just compensation in this case. In ascertaining just compensation, the
measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss.

The Court of Appeals further noted that the Republic's offer of the
2003 zonal valuation did not reflect the fair market value of the land as of
November 2007 when the complaint for expropriation was filed. In any
event, the zonal valuation was only one of the indices of the land's value.
The Republic also failed to prove the supposed presence of informal settlers
on the land itself.

3
Id. at 75-103.
4
Id. at37-51.
5
Id. at 50-51.

•
f
Decision 5 G.R. No. 227960

Lastly, the Court of Appeals held that while the Republic may have
way back in 1997 expropriated 80.50 square meters of the property for only
P2,000.00 per square meter, this amount was no longer the prevailing fair
market value of the remaining area ten (10) years later in 2007 when the
Republic initiated the present expropriation complaint.

The Present Petition

t

The Republic now asks the Court to exercise its discretionary

appellate jurisdiction to review and reverse the assailed decision of the Court
of Appeals pertaining to the amount of just compensation on the property.

The Republic asserts that Hobart should not be considered the

veritable factor in determining the amount of just compensation here. Other
equally important factors include the nature and character of the land, the
presence of informal settlers in the adjacent areas, and the zonal valuation of
the land. 6

In their Comment dated June 14, 2017, 7 respondents argue that the
trial court did not err when it sustained Hobart's final and executory
valuation in the amount of P15,000.00 per square meter. Too, the amount of
just compensation for the previously expropriated 80.50 square meters of the
property could no longer be considered fair and just ten (10) years later.
More, while there may be informal settlers in the barangay, there are no
informal settlers within the vicinity of the property itself. The property lies
just a few steps away from Hobart Village where the prevailing market price
has risen to P40,000.00. Based on distance or proximity, the land may be
reasonably assessed at P30,000.00 per square meter, yet, the Board reduced
it by half and recommended only P15,000.00 per square meter.

In its Reply dated December 21, 2017, 8 the Republic points out that
the Board did not even conduct an ocular inspection of the land albeit the C-
5 Northern Link Project had already been completed around the same time
the Board was constituted. It only relied on the land valuation found in
previously decided cases and electronic data via internet, although these data
are not genuinely verifiable. While it is true that the property lies beside
Hobart Village, Hobart cannot be applied here because the factual
circumstances there are different from those obtaining here. Department
Order No. 81-2015 dated July 28, 2016 issued by the Department of Finance
shows that the zonal value for residential lots in Barangay Ugong range only
from P2,000.00 to P3,950.00 per square meter.

6
Id at 23-30.
7
ldat116-126.
8 Id at 136-144.

f
Decision 6 G.R. No. 227960

The Core Issue

•
Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in affirming the
amount of P15,000.00 per square meter as just compensation for the
property?

Ruling

The petition utterly lacks merit.

In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised

Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised. The Court not being a
trier of facts will not take cognizance of factual issues which require the
presentation and appreciation of the parties' evidence. The Court, therefore,
will not calibrate anew the same evidence which the courts below had
already passed upon in full. Indeed, in the absence here of grave abuse of
discretion, misapprehension of facts, conflicting findings, or erroneous
appreciation of the evidence, the trial court's factual findings are conclusive
and binding on the Court, more so because such factual findings carry the
concurrence of the Court of Appeals. 9

In any event, just compensation is defined as the full and fair

equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The
measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used
to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" and to convey thereby
the idea that the equivalent for the property to be taken shall be real,
substantial, full, and ample. 10

Section 5 of Republic Act 8974 11 (RA 8974) enumerates the following

relevant standards the court may consider, among others, in the
determination of just compensation, viz:

Section 5. Standards for the Assessment of the Value of the Land Subject
of Expropriation Proceedings or Negotiated Sale. - 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 improvement on the land and for the value of
improvements thereon;

9 See National Power Corporation v. Apolonia V Marasigan, et al., G.R. No. 220367, November 20,
2017, 845 SCRA 248, 264-265.
10 See National Transmission Corporation v. Oroville Development Corporation, 815 Phil. 91, I 05 (2017).
11 An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site or Location For National Government
Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes, November 7, 2000.

1
Decision 7 G.R. No. 227960

(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 approximate
areas as those required from them by the government, and thereby
rehabilitate themselves as early as possible.

Did the trial court consider these relevant standards in its

determination of the just compensation in the case? This requires a quick
reference to the decision itself, viz:
' In estimating the market value, all the capabilities of the property
and all the uses to which it may be applied or for which it is adapted are to
be considered and not merely the condition it is the time and use to which
it is then applied by the owner. All the facts as to the condition of the
property and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities may be
shown and considered in estimating its value.

The court takes judicial notice of the fact that the project, C-5
Northern Link Road Project Segment 8.1 from Mindanao Avenue in
Quezon City to the North Luzon Expressway, Valenzuela City, which is
the basis for the expropriation of the property of the defendants-spouses
has already been completed and has long been utilized by the motoring
public.

There is no dispute that the 413-square meter subject lot, irregular

"L" in shape with generally flat terrain, was classified as residential by the
Bureau of International (sic) Revenue (BIR) and the same has a zonal
valuation of Php3,450.00/square meter. The property subject of
expropriation is a portion of the 527-square meter lot covered by TCT No.
B-26619 registered in the name of the defendants-spouses. Previously, a
portion of the lot at about 80.50 sq.m., covered by TCT No. B-26619 was
already expropriated in favor of the government. The property subject of
expropriation is about 0.00 meters away, adjacent to the property Hobart
Realty Development Corporation, which was expropriated by the plaintiff
and in which the just compensation was pegged by this court in the
amount of PhplS,000/sq.m .. It is located in an area with mixed residential
and commercial land usages.

Plaintiff tried to lower the value of the subject property by proving

that in several portions of C-5 Northern link Road Project, Segment 8.1,
Valenzuela City, there were informal settlers in Barangay U gong where
the property of the defendants-spouses is located. Plaintiff, however, failed
to prove that the lot of the defendants-spouses was occupied by squatters
or near the vicinity of the alleged squatters.

XXX XXX XXX

I
Decision 8 G.R. No. 22796('.)

In fine, considering that the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence to

support its claim for a lower valuation for the defendants-spouses'
property, the court approves the recommendation of the Board of
Commissioners of Phpl5,000.00 per square meter. 12

The decision speaks for itself. Land capabilities, use, shape, flat
terrain, classification as residential property, surroundings, improvements,
adjacent properties, final decision in similar expropriation cases of adjacent
properties, proof of informal settlers, if any, in adjacent areas are the
relevant standards considered by the trial court in determining the amount of
just compensation for the property. In fact, the Court of Appeals aptly took
notice of the meticulous process by which the trial court determined the
amount of just compensation here, viz:

As borne by the records, the RTC considered the foregoing

standards in fixing the just compensation for the subject property. It
considered the classification, size, shape, location, and zonal valuation
thereof, selling price of a similar land in the vicinity, and value declared
by the owners. It is clear from the satellite map that the property sought to
be expropriated is located near the property subject of the Hobart case. No
less than the Republic itself presented an evidence that the subject
property is situated within the Hobart Village. Hence, th~ RTC's final
determination of the just compensation in the Hobart case. is material in
assessing the FMV of the property sought to be expropriated. The Hobart
case was decided on March 16, 2010 and the RTC pegged the FMV of the
subject property therein at Pl5,000.00 per sq.m. Indubitably, the said
valuation equally applies to the subject property considering that they are
similarly situated. Thus, the RTC was correct in fixing the just
compensation of the expropriated land at P15,000.00 per sq.m. xx xx

On the other hand, the Republic cannot insist that the FMV of the
subject property is only P3,450.00 per sq.m. Notably, the Republic based
such valuation on the BIR zonal valuation determined sometime in 2003
which is obsolete and does not reflect the value of the property at the time
of the filing of the expropriation proceedings on November 23, 2007. It
must be emphasized that the zonal valuation cannot, by and itself, be
considered as the sole basis for just compensation. 13 x x x x

In sum, the challenge of the Republic against the so called "just

compensation" devoid of factual and legal bases must fail.

In any event, the Republic's persistent plea for a remarkably reduced

amount of just compenastion here should give way to what is fair and just.
Consider:

One. The amount of P2,000.00 per square meter way back circa 1997
is no longer just or fair ten (10) years after in 2007 when the expropriation

12
Id. at 68-69.
13
Id. at 46-47.

4
Decision 9 G.R. No. 227960

complaint was filed. It is settled that just compensation refers to the value of
the property at the time of taking 14 not earlier nor later.

Two. The zonal value alone of the properties in the area whether of
recent or vintage years does not equate to just compensation. Otherwise, its
determination will cease to be judicial in nature. All the court has to do is
adopt the zonal value of the property in its decision, a purely mechanical act
which totally negates the exercise of judicial discretion. For sure, this is
highly irregular if not totally improper. Precisely, RA 8974 prescribes
relevant standards the courts may consider in fixing the amount of just
compensation subject to the court's exercise of judicial discretion.

Three. Continuous resistance against the application of Hobart here is

uncalled for. In its assailed decision, the Court of Appeals lucidly discussed
why Hobart bears the fair and reasonable amount of just compensation for
the property in question, thus:

x x x x It is clear from the satellite map that the property sought to be

expropriated is located near the property subject of the Hobart case. No
less than the Republic itself presented an evidence that the subject
property is situated within the Hobart Village. Hence, the RTC's final
determination of the just compensation in the Hobart case is material in
assessing the FMV of the property sought to be expropriated. The Hobart
case was decided on March 16, 2010 and the RTC pegged the FMV of the
subject property therein at P15,000.00 per sq.m. Indubitably, the said
valuation equally applies to the subject property considering that they are
similarly situated. Thus, the RTC was correct in fixing the just
compensation of the expropriated land at P15,000.00 per sq.m. 15 xx xx

Indeed, Hobart is the binding final and executory precedent on how

much is deemed to be just compensation for the property in question. Hobart
is circa 2012 but the same has been adopted by the Court anew in Republic
v. Ng, 16 involving expropriation of lot in Barangay Ugong, Valenzuela City,
as in this case, the just compensation of which the Court lifted from Hobart.
Republic v. Ng is fairly recent. It came out only on November 29, 2017, or
less than two (2) years ago.

Four. The Republic failed to prove the alleged presence of informal

settlers in the property or its immediate vicinity. Its own witness, Fe Pesebre,
Officer-in-Charge in the Institutional Development Division of the National
Housing Authority, testified that she had no information whether informal
settlers were found on respondents' property. 17

14 National Transmission Corporation v. Oroville Development Corporation, supra note 10, at 107.
15
Rollo, p. 46.
16
G.R. No. 229335, November 29, 2017, 847 SCRA 321.
17
Rollo,p.41.

I
Decision 10 G.R. No. 227960

Republic v. C.C. Unson Company, lnc., 18 articulates the extent of the

Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction over cases brought before it via
Rule 45, viz:

This Court, however, is not a trier of facts; and petitions brought

under Rule 45 may only raise questions of law. This rule applies in
expropriation cases as well. In Republic v. Spouses Bautista, the Court
explained the reason therefor:

This Court is not a trier of facts. Questions of fact may

not be raised in a petition brought under Rule 45, as such petition
may only raise questions of law. This rule applies in
expropriation cases. Moreover, factual findings of the trial
court, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding on
this Court. An evaluation of the case and the issues presented
leads the Comi to the conclusion that it is unnecessary to deviate
from the findings of fact of the trial and appellate coutis.

Under Section 8 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the

trial court sitting as an expropriation court may, after
hearing, accept the commissioners' report and render
judgment in accordance therewith. This is what the trial cowi
did in this case. The CA affirmed the trial cou1i's
pronouncement in toto. Given these facts, the trial court and
the CA 's identical findings of fact concerning the issu~of just
compensation should be accorded the greatest respect, and
are binding on the Court absent proof that they committed
error in establishing the facts and in drawing conclusions
from them. There being no showing that the trial court and
the CA committed any error, we thus accord due respect to
their findings.

The only legal question raised by the petitioner relates to

the commissioners' and the trial comi's alleged failure to take
into consideration, in arriving at the amount of just
compensation, Section 5 of RA 8974 enumerating the standards
for assessing the value of expropriated land taken for national
government infrastructure projects. What escapes petitioner,
however, is that the comis are not bound to consider these
standards; the exact wording of the said provision is that "in
order to facilitate the determination of just compensation, the
comis may consider" them. The use of the word "may" in the
provision is construed as permissive and operating to confer
discretion. In the absence of a finding of abuse, the exercise of
such discretion may not be interfered with. For this case, the
Comi finds no such abuse of discretion. (Emphasis supplied)

All told, the Court of Appeals did not err when it affirmed the amount
of Pl 5,000.00 per square meter as just compensation for the expropriated
land owned by respondent Spouses Lorenzana Juan Darlucio and Cosme
Darlucio.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the Decision dated

May 11, 2016 and Resolution dated October 26, 2016, AFFIRMED.

18
781 Phil. 770, 783-784 (2016).

(
Decision 11 G.R. No. 227960

SO ORDERED.

t
AM1rl~O-JAVIER
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

ESTELA ~P~S-BERNABE
Associate Justice

,t~,c._
E C. Rf YES, JR.
~ ssociate Justice

ATTESTATION

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
Court's division.

ANTONIO T. CA
' Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
Decision 12 G.R. No. 227960 .-

CERTIFICATION
•
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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 Court's
Division.