Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81104:gr-181218-2013&catid=1566&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:56:28+00:00

Document:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Petitioner, v.HEIRS OF SPOUSES PEDRO BAUTISTA and VALENTINA MALABANAN, Respondent.
Time and again it has been said that the market value of a piece of property is the price that may be agreed upon by parties willing but not compelled to enter into a sale. As expected, a seller in dire need of funds will accept less, and a buyer desperate to acquire naturally agrees to pay more, than what the property is truly worth.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the October 31, 2007 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 85751 as well as its January 11, 2008 Resolution3 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Pedro Bautista and Valentina Malabanan (spouses Bautista) are the registered owners of a 1,893-square meter parcel of land (the lot) located in Barangay Bulacnin North, Lipa City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 41750.4 Respondents are their children.
Later on, petitioner offered to purchase an additional 1,155 square meters of the lot at P100.00 per square meter, but the spouses Bautista refused to sell. The portion sought to be purchased was to be used for the Balete-Lipa City Interchange Ramp B, which would serve as a motorists entry/exit to/from Lipa City.
On July 7, 2004, the petitioner filed a Complaint6 with the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City for the expropriation of the said 1,155-square meter portion (the subject portion). The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 2004-0408 and raffled to Branch 12. In its Amended Complaint,7 petitioner alleged that the zonal valuation of the lot at the time of the filing of the Complaint as determined by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) is P100.00 per square meter,8 which is thus the fair value of the property for purposes of expropriation.
During the expropriation proceedings, the spouses Bautista passed away, and were accordingly substituted by the respondents.
The Lipa City Assessor and the Registrar of Deeds thus concluded in their Joint Commissioners Report that just compensation for the subject portion should be within the range of P1,960.00 and P2,500.00 per square meter.33 To this, respondents filed their Comment34 dated June 23, 2005 accepting such valuation as fair and reasonable.
WHEREFORE, the just compensation for the 1,155 square meters parcel of land expropriated by the plaintiff as site of the right of way connection with the construction of the Balete-Lipa City Interchange Ramp B, Lipa City, is fixed at P1,960.00 per square meter, including all the improvements thereon, or a total of P2,263,800.
The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Secretary, Department of Public Works and Highways, is ordered to pay to the defendants, the aforementioned amount of P2,263,800, with interest at the legal rate, from the time it took possession of the condemned property, until fully paid.
If the defendants or any of them refuse or fail to receive said payment, the same shall be made to the Clerk of Court, RTC, Lipa City, who shall receive such payment and be responsible on his bond therefor.
Upon finality of this decision, the Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is directed to immediately issue a certified true copy of the same for recording in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Lipa City. With costs against the plaintiff.
The trial court validated the public purpose for which expropriation of the subject portion was necessary. As for the issue of just compensation, the trial court adopted the May 3, 2005 Joint Commissioners Report of the Lipa City Assessor and the Registrar of Deeds, finding the recommended valuation of P1,960.00 per square meter as reasonable, fair, and realistic.
Petitioner interposed an appeal with the CA.
Docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 85751, the appeal questioned the trial courts P1,960.00 valuation, claiming that in arriving at such amount, the trial court disregarded other documentary evidence such as the assessed value, tax declaration, the BIR zonal valuation, and the appraisal report of the Lipa City Assessor.
The CA sustained the trial courts reliance on the Lipa City Assessor and the Registrar of Deedss May 3, 2005 Joint Commissioners Report, finding that the same took into consideration the fair market value of the subject portion, the condition of the surroundings, the improvements introduced, the character of the property, and the value of adjacent and nearby properties as shown by the deeds of sale covering the same. The CA also noted that in 2000, petitioner bought a 36-square meter portion of respondents property at P1,300.00 per square meter, which means that as of 2000, respondents property already had a market value of P1,300.00 per square meter.
The CA added that with the passage of time and construction of the STAR tollway beside respondents property, the value thereof has appreciated. These factors and circumstances were not taken into consideration in Mecates April 25, 2005 report.
The CA further held that the May 3, 2005 Joint Commissioners Report is the majority decision of the constituted board of commissioners. Such being the case, the trial court may not be faulted for relying thereon. In the absence of abuse on the part of the commissioners or the trial court, their determination regarding just compensation must be sustained.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated August 18, 2005 is affirmed, subject to the modification that the preliminary deposit of P115,000.00 with Land Bank of the Philippines shall be deducted from the total amount of just compensation of P2,263,800.00.
Unable to obtain a reconsideration of the appellate courts Decision, petitioners filed the present Petition.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURTS DECISION FIXING THE JUST COMPENSATION AT P1,960.00 PER SQUARE METER DESPITE ITS FAILURE TO CONSIDER ALL FACTORS IN ARRIVING AT SAID AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAWS.
Petitioner adds that under Section 648 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, commissioners in an expropriation case should assess the consequential damages to the property not taken and deduct from such consequential damages the consequential benefits to be derived by the owner from the public use or purpose of the property taken, the operation of its franchise by the corporation or the carrying on of the business of the corporation or person taking the property; but in no case shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the owner be deprived of the actual value of his property so taken.
Petitioner also argues that it is erroneous for the CA to affirm the trial courts Decision, which disregarded absolutely Mecates April 25, 2005 Commissioners Report, which properly took into consideration the BIR zonal valuation, the assessed value, tax declarations covering the property, and the character of the subject portion sought to be expropriated. It adds that the trial courts valuation is grossly excessive, considering that the subject portion is merely agricultural land.
Petitioner thus prays that the CA Decision be reversed and set aside, and that the Court render judgment modifying the trial courts Decision, thus reducing the amount of just compensation for the subject portion from P1,960.00 per square meter to between P400.00 and P600.00 per square meter.
Respondents insist in their Comment49 that the trial courts judgment, as affirmed by the CA, is supported by evidence, in accord with existing jurisprudence, and, echoing the trial court, reasonable, fair, and realistic. On the other hand, Mecates Commissioners Report fails to take into consideration the previous acquisition by the petitioner of a portion of their property at P1,300.00 per square meter in 2000; the fair market value of the property; and decisions of the Court which emphasize that in the determination of just compensation, it is not only the value appearing on the tax declarations and BIR zonal valuations that are considered, but also the nature, character and condition of the land, as well as its surroundings, improvements and capabilities.
Respondents conclude that the adjudged just compensation in the amount of P1,960.00 per square meter for the subject portion is not excessive.
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.50 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 Court to the conclusion that it is unnecessary to deviate from the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts.
Under Section 851 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 court did in this case. The CA affirmed the trial courts pronouncement in toto. Given these facts, the trial court and the CAs identical findings of fact concerning the issue 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 courts 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 courts 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 courts may consider" them. The use of the word "may" in the provision is construed as permissive and operating to confer discretion.52 In the absence of a finding of abuse, the exercise of such discretion may not be interfered with. For this case, the Court finds no such abuse of discretion.
In fact, the May 3, 2005 Joint Commissioners Report took into consideration four out of the eight standards enumerated in Section 5. This can hardly be termed a total disregard of Section 5.
especially; the Joint Commissioners' Report indicates how the city has rapidly progressed through the years -- where once there was grass, concrete structures now stand.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed October 31, 2007 Decision and January 11, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 85751 are AFFIRMED.
* Per raffle dated November 19, 2012.
2 Id. at 41-53; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Ricardo R. Rosario.
3 Id. at 54; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Normandie R. Pizarro.
17 Id. at 99; Order of the trial court dated February 8, 2005.
26 Registered on June 1, 2000; id. at 11.
31 Id. at 104 citing National Power Corporation v. Spouses Igmedio, 452 Phil. 649, 663 (2003).
32 Id. citing Republic v. Ker & Company Limited., 433 Phil. 70, 76-77 (2002), and Republic v. Court of Appeals, 238 Phil. 475, 486 (1987).
43 Id. at 123-125; penned by Judge Vicente F. Landicho.
47 AN ACT TO FACILITATE THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, SITE OR LOCATION FOR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
48 Section 6. Proceedings by commissioners. Before entering upon the performance of their duties, the commissioners shall take and subscribe an oath that they will faithfully perform their duties as commissioners, which oath shall be filed in court with the other proceedings in the case. Evidence may be introduced by either party before the commissioners who are authorized to administer oaths on hearings before them, and the commissioners shall, unless the parties consent to the contrary, after due notice to the parties, to attend, view and examine the property sought to be expropriated and its surroundings, and may measure the same, after which either party may, by himself or counsel, argue the case. The commissioners shall assess the consequential damages to the property not taken and deduct from such consequential damages the consequential benefits to be derived by the owner from the public use or purpose of the property taken, the operation of its franchise by the corporation or the carrying on of the business of the corporation or person taking the property. But in no case shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the owner be deprived of the actual value of his property so taken.
50 Republic v. Tan Song Bok, G.R. No. 191448, November 16, 2011, 660 SCRA 330, 343; National PowerCorporation v. Court of Appeals, 479 Phil. 850, 865 (2004).
51 Section 8. Action upon commissioners report. Upon the expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred to in the preceding section, or even before the expiration of such period but after all the interested parties have filed their objections to the report or their statement of agreement therewith, the court may, after hearing, accept the report and render judgment in accordance therewith, or, for cause shown, it may recommit the same to the commissioners for further report of facts, or it may set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; or it may 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.
52 Office of the Ombudsman v. De Sahagun, G.R. No. 167982, August 13, 2008, 562 SCRA 122, 129.
53 National Power Corporation v. Co, G.R. No. 166973, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 235, 246. Citation omitted.
56 B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89980, December 14, 1992, 216 SCRA 584. 587.

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