Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84315:60420&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:13:19+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 175493, March 25, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF GABRIEL Q. FERNANDEZ, Respondents.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF GABRIEL Q. FERNANDEZ,1 Respondents.
The state and its implementing agencies must first comply with the requirements outlined in Section 4 of Republic Act No. 89742 before these are allowed to take possession of private property for a national infrastructure project.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari3 under Rule 45 assailing the Decision4 dated August 25, 2006 and Resolution5 dated November 14, 2006 of the Court of Appeals, which reversed and set aside the authorization granted by the trial court for petitioner Republic of the Philippines to take possession of respondents Heirs of Gabriel Q. Fernandez's property in an expropriation proceeding.
On August 25, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision23 that set aside the Republic's authority to take possession of the property but affirmed the Order to appoint commissioners to determine the amount of just compensation.
The Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but this was denied by the Court of Appeals in the Resolution dated November 14, 2006.29 Aggrieved, the Republic filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this court.
First, whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside petitioner Republic's Writ of Possession for the latter's failure to comply with Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974.
Second, whether the reversal of the issuance of the Writ of Possession by the Court of Appeals was effectively an injunction against petitioner Republic from proceeding with the expropriation.
A Writ of Possession may be issued only upon full compliance with Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974.
In case the completion of a government infrastructure project is of utmost urgency and importance, and there is no existing valuation of the area concerned, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property its proffered value taking into consideration the standards prescribed in Section 5 hereof.
Upon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project.
Before the court can issue a Writ of Possession, the implementing agency shall present to the court a certificate of availability of funds from the proper official concerned.
In the event that the owner of the property contests the implementing agency's proffered value, the court shall determine the just compensation to be. paid the owner within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation case. When the decision of the court becomes final and executory, the implementing agency shall pay the owner the difference between the amount already paid and the just compensation as determined by the court.
Under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974, the implementing agency must, upon filing of the expropriation complaint, immediately pay the property owner an amount equivalent to 100% of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation by the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the value of any improvements or structure on a replacement cost method. The law further mandates that courts may issue a Writ of Possession only upon the presentation by the implementing agency of a certificate of availability of funds.
The payment of the provisional value under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974 is different from the payment of just compensation.
Upon compliance with the requirements, a petitioner in an expropriation case is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right and it becomes the ministerial duty of the trial court to forthwith issue the writ of possession. No hearing is required and the court neither exercises its discretion or judgment in determining the amount of the provisional value of the properties to be expropriated as the legislature has fixed the amount under Section 4 of R.A. 8974.
The first refers to the preliminary or provisional determination of the value of the property. It serves a double-purpose of pre-payment if the property is fully expropriated, and of an indemnity for damages if the proceedings are dismissed. It is not a final determination of just compensation and may not necessarily be equivalent to the prevailing fair market value of the property. Of course, it may be a factor to be considered in the determination of list compensation.
Just compensation, on the other hand, is the final determination of the fair market value of the property. It has been described as "the just and complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation." Market values, has also been described in a variety of ways as the "price fixed by the buyer and seller in the open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal trade and competition; the price and value of the article established as shown by sale, public or private, in the ordinary way of business; the fair value of the property between one who desires to purchase and one who desires to sell; the current price; the general or ordinary price for which property may be sold in that locality.
Any payment made by the Republic as to the expropriated property's provisional value is not equivalent to the payment of the present fair market value of the property. It only serves- as a pre-payment so that the government may take possession of the property. Moreover, the value need not be judicially determined; rather, the value has already been set by the current relevant zonal value of the area as classified by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Rep. Act No. 8974 represents a significant change from previous expropriation laws such as Rule 67, or even Section 19 of the Local Government Code. Rule 67 and the Local Government Code merely provided that the Government deposit the initial amounts antecedent to acquiring possession of the property with, respectively, an authorized Government depositary or the proper court. In both cases, the private owner does not receive compensation prior to the deprivation of property. On the other hand, Rep. Act No. 8974 mandates immediate payment of the initial just compensation prior to the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of the Government.
Here, the Republic issued a check44 in the name of Gabriel Q. Fernandez for P167,475.00, the amount it alleged was 100% of the zonal value of the property at P15.00 per square meter. It presented as evidence a certification45 by the Bureau of Internal Revenue on the zonal valuation of Barangay Road in Barangay Tuyo, Balanga, Bataan, which pegged the property as "pastureland" valued at P15.00 per square meter.
The Department of Public Works and Highways also submitted a certificate of availability of funds46 certifying that the amount of P7,705,000.00 was appropriated for the four-lane highway in Barangay Tuyo, Balanga, Bataan less the amount of P167,475.00 to be paid to Gabriel Q. Fernandez.
The correct zonal value of the property is P50.00 per square meter, not P15.00 per square meter.
As a general rule, findings of fact of the lower courts are binding on this court. There are, however, exceptions to this rule, such as when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals contradict the findings of the trial court.48 In this instance, an independent examination of the evidence is necessary in order to resolve the issue.
The case records show that the parties presented as evidence two different sets of the Bureau of Internal Revenue zonal valuations covering Barangay Tuyo, Balanga, Bataan.
The relevant zonal value of the properties in Balanga, Bataan at the time of the filing of the expropriation case was covered by Bureau of Internal Revenue Department Order No. 92-96. This Department Order was effective from December 30, 1996 to December 27, 2002.
The photocopies presented by the Republic and respondents Heirs of Fernandez are almost identical computer-encoded copies. However, typewritten annotations on the Republic's photocopy, specifically of "riceland," "unirr. riceland," and "pastureland" under "Vicinity" and the corresponding amounts of "20.00" corresponding to "unirr. riceland" and "15.00" corresponding to "pastureland," are present.
The Republic's photocopy was certified as a true photocopy by "Marciano P. Felipe, Jr., Group Supervisor, Chief, Assessment Br." His name and designation were also typewritten. The document stamps were affixed on February 2, 2002.
Respondents Heirs of Fernandez's photocopy, on the other hand, was certified as a true photocopy by Epifania A. Recana, signing on behalf of Beatriz S. Pelino, Assistant Division Chief of the Asset Valuation Board, and verified by Mirasol Z. Tolentino on June 2, 2001. It does not contain the typewritten annotations.
Marciano P. Felipe, Jr. was not presented as a witness to testify on the typewritten annotations. There was no evidence presented that the Bureau of Internal Revenue or any of its officers consented to the typewritten annotations. There was also no explanation given by the Republic as to why there were typewritten annotations to what otherwise appeared to be a genuine document.
Under Section 753 of Republic Act No. 8424, the Commissioner is authorized to delegate his or her powers under the law. However, the Republic did not present any evidence that the signatory, Marciano P. Felipe, Jr., was authorized by the Commissioner to make alterations on the photocopy of the document.
In view of this omission, the Republic's photocopy is inadmissible as evidence.
Even assuming that the Republic's' photocopy were valid, the zonal value of respondents Heirs of Fernandez's property at P15.00 per square meter, corresponding to "pastureland," would still be incorrect. According to the tax declaration of Gabriel Q. Fernandez submitted by the Republic before the trial court, the property was classified as "Veg. land."54 In the Bureau of Internal Revenue Department Order No. 92-96, the classification legend of vegetable land was "A7" while the classification legend for pastureland was "A9." The Republic would have to pay the zonal value corresponding to "A7," not "A9."
The setting aside of an improperly issued Writ of Possession is not the same as the issuance of an Injunctive Writ.
The Republic argues that the Court of Appeals' setting aside the Writ of Possession was "akin to a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or Injunction,"55 which was prohibited by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8975.56 This is erroneous.
This prohibition shall apply in all cases, disputes or controversies instituted by a private party, including but not limited to cases filed by bidders or those claiming to have rights through such bidders involving such contract/project. This prohibition shall not apply when the matter is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, such that'unless a temporary restraining order is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise. The applicant shall file a bond, in an amount to be fixed by the court, which bond shall accrue in favor of the government if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought.
The law is clear. All courts, excluding this court, are prohibited from issuing a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or mandatory preliminary injunction to enjoin the government from acquiring the site of any national government project.
Contrary to the Republic's argument, the setting aside of a Writ of Possession is not an injunction.
[u]pon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project.
Thus, the court cannot issue a Writ of Possession if the guidelines were not complied with. There is also nothing that prevents a court from setting aside a Writ of Possession on appeal when it is found that the guidelines were not complied with.
Moreover, the applicant must follow the procedural requisites outlined in Rule 58 of the Rules of Civil Procedure before a preliminary injunction may be granted by the court. The facts show that respondents Heirs of Fernandez have not commenced any proceeding of this nature.
Clearly, the Writ of Possession was set aside by the Court of Appeals, not as an ancillary remedy to preserve respondents Heirs of Fernandez's rights, but because the Republic failed to comply with the requirements of Republic Act No. 8974.
Brion,*(Acting Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Perlas-Bernabe,**JJ., concur.
1 Namely, Helen F. De Los Santos, Bernardita Fernandez, Gabriel Y. Fernandez, and Generoso Y. Fernandez.
* Designated Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 1955 dated March 23, 2015.
** Designated Acting Member per S.O. No. 1956 dated March 23, 2015.
2 An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes (2000).
4 Id. at 23-39. The case, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 75449 and dated August 25, 2006, was penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon and concurred in by Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Japar B. Dimaampao of the Court of Appeals Manila Fifth Division.
Upon compliance with the guidelines above mentioned, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project.
In the event that the owner of the property contests the implementing agency's proffered value, the court shall determine the just compensation to be paid the owner within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation case. When the decision of the court becomes final and executory, the implementing agency shall pay the owner the difference between the amount already, paid and the just compensation as determined by the court.
11 Implementing Rules and Regulations, Rep. Act. No. 8974, sec. 12. Writ of Possession - pursuant to Section 4 of the Act, upon compliance with the guidelines stated in Section 8 of this IRR, the Court shall immediately issue to the Implementing Agency an order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project.
Before the Court can issue a Writ of Possession, however, the Implementing Agency shall present to the Court a Certificate of Availability of Funds signed by authorized officials to cover the payment to be made to the property owner.
After the Implementing Agency has complied with foregoing requirements, the Court shall immediately issue the Writ of Possession to the complainant Implementing Agency.
38 Rep. Act No. 8974, sec. 7. Valuation of Improvements and/or Structures. - The Department of Public Works and Highways and other implementing agencies concerned, in coordination with the local government units concerned in the acquisition of right-of-way, site or location for any national government infrastructure project, are hereby mandated to adopt within sixty (60) days upon approval of this Act, the necessary implementing rules and regulations for the equitable valuation of the improvements and/or structures on the land to be expropriated.
Implementing Rules and Regulations, Rep. Act No. 8974, sec. 10. Valuation of Improvements and/or Structures - Pursuant to Section 7 of the Act, the Implementing Agency shall determine the valuation of the improvements and/or structures on the land to be acquired using the replacement cost method. The replacement cost of the improvements/structures is defined as the amount necessary to replace the improvements/structure's, based on the current market prices for materials, equipment, labor, contractor's profit and overhead, and all other attendant costs associated with the acquisition and installation in place of the affected improvements/structures.
In the valuation of the affected improvements/structures, the Implementing Agency shall consider, among other things, the kinds and quantities of materials/equipment used, the location, configuration and other physical features of the properties, and prevailing construction prices.
39 CONST., art. III, sec. 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
40 539 Phil. 644 (2006) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division].
41 Id. at 659-660, citing City of Iloilo v. Legaspi, 486 Phil. 474 (2004) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division] and Republic v. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 166429, February 1, 2006, 481 SCRA 457, 469 [Per J. Tinga, En Banc].
42 G.R. No. 166429, February 1, 2006, 481 SCRA 457 [Per J. Tinga, En Banc].
43 Id., citing RULES OF COURT, Rule 67, sec. 2 and LOCAL GOVT. CODE, sec. 19.
44 RTC records, p. 53.
48See Republic v. Court of Appeals and Francisco Diaz, 494 Phil. 494, 507 (2005) [Per J. Carpio, First Division], citing Changco v. Court of Appeals, 429 Phil. 336 (2002) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
49 RTC records, p. 110.
51 Zonal Values (visited February 11, 2015).
52 Otherwise known as the Tax Reform Act of 1997, enacted on December 11, 1997.
The power to assign or reassign internal revenue officers to establishments where articles subject to excise tax are produced or kept.
54 RTC records, p. 8.
56 An Act to Ensure the Expeditious Implementation and Completion of Government Infrastructure Projects by Prohibiting Lower Courts from issuing Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions or Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions, Providing Penalties for Violations thereof, and for Other Purposes (2000).
57 G.R. No. 167057, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 173 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
58 Id. at 186, citing RULES OF CIV. PROC., Rule 58, secs. 1 and 3.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.