G.R. No. 194247 - Bases Conversion and Development Authority vs. Reyes

Case Digest (G.R. No. 194247)
Advanced

Facts:

Parties and their respective properties

Bases Conversion Development Authority (petitioner) initiated expropriation proceedings in the Regional Trial Court of Dinalupihan, Bataan, Branch 5 (RTC) concerning parcels of land located in Barangay San Ramon, Dinalupihan, Bataan.
Respondent Rosa Reyes (Rosa) owned a parcel registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. CLOA-10265.
Respondents Cenando Reyes (Cenando) and Carlos Reyes (Carlos) owned other parcels of land covered by separate expropriation complaints.

Petitioner’s complaints for expropriation and the amount of deposit

On February 13, 2007, petitioner filed a complaint docketed as Civil Case No. DH-1136-07 to expropriate three hundred eight (308) square meters of Rosa’s land for the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEx).
Petitioner alleged that Rosa’s property was an irrigated riceland with a zonal value of P20.00 per square meter, based on the relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).
Petitioner deposited P6,120.00, representing one hundred percent (100%) of the zonal value, pursuant to Section 4(a), Republic Act No. 8974 (RA 8974).
Petitioner also filed two similar complaints docketed as Civil Case Nos. DH-1137-07 and DH-1138-07 for the expropriation of:

One hundred fifty-six (156) square meters from Cenando’s parcel, with a deposit of P3,120.00; and
Three hundred eighty-four (384) square meters from Carlos’s parcel, with a deposit of P7,680.00.

Petitioner based the deposits on the same Section 4(a) of RA 8974 and the BIR zonal valuations it claimed to apply.

Respondents’ Answers and their position on just compensation

In their separate Answers, respondents did not object to petitioner’s right to expropriate.
Respondents claimed petitioner’s offered just compensation was ridiculously low because the properties had been re-classified into residential lots as early as October 6, 2003.
Respondents asserted that, as a result, their zonal values ranged from P3,000.00 to P6,000.00 per square meter, as determined by the BIR.
To expedite proceedings, respondents expressed amenability to accept the rate of P3,000.00 per square meter at the lowest, which would translate to:

P924,000.00 for Rosa;
P468,000.00 for Cenando; and
P1,152,000.00 for Carlos.

Consolidation and writ of possession

The three cases were consolidated by RTC order dated May 23, 2007.
The RTC granted petitioner a writ of possession on December 12, 2007.

Motion for Summary Judgment and opposing arguments

On April 27, 2007, respondents filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending there were no genuine issues left except the amount of damages constituting just compensation.
In opposition, petitioner argued:

Rule 35 of the Rules of Court on summary judgment applies only to ordinary civil actions for recovery of money claims, not to expropriation cases; and
The mandatory constitution of a panel of commissioners under Section 5, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court precluded summary judgment.

Respondents replied that Rule 35 applies to both ordinary and special civil actions.

RTC’s Orders on summary judgment and just compensation

On November 27, 2007, the RTC granted the motion for summary judgment.
The RTC ordered petitioner to pay just compensation at the rate of P3,000.00 per square meter, for totals of:

P924,000.00 for Rosa;
P1,152,000.00 for Carlos; and
P468,000.00 for Cenando.

In so ruling, the RTC held that the subject properties had been re-classified from agricultural to residential in 2004, long before the expropriation complaints were filed.
The RTC ruled that just compensation should fall within P3,000.00 to P6,000.00 per square meter, pursuant to the BIR zonal valuation published in the December 9, 2002 issue of the Official Gazette.
The RTC reasoned that because respondents had signified willingness to accept P3,000.00 per square meter, there was nothing left to do and proceedings should be terminated through summary judgment.
The RTC brushed aside petitioner’s contention on the constitution of commissioners, treating it as a futile exercise that would only delay proceedings.

Motion for reconsideration and denial

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds that:

Respondents failed to prove proper re-classification;
The RTC erred in fixing valuation at P3,000.00 per square meter because the lots were...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal from the RTC’s summary judgment orders fixing just compensation.

Whether petitioner’s appeal raised questions of law only, such that the proper remedy was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 was dismissible.
Whether the RTC properly granted respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment and fixed just compensation without the appointment of commissioners under Section 5, Rule 67.
Whether the CA was correct in precluding consideration of certain matters first raised in ...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. 194247)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 194247)
Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 194247) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 194247) Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 194247)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. 194247)
Advanced