Case Digest (G.R. No. 142971)
Facts:
In City of Cebu v. Spouses Dedamo, G.R. No. 142971, decided May 7, 2002, the City of Cebu (petitioner) instituted Civil Case No. CEB-14632 on September 17, 1993 against Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo (respondents) for the expropriation of two contiguous lots (Nos. 1527 and 1528) in Cebu City, covering a total of 1,624 square meters, for use as a public access/relief road. The complaint detailed the land areas, tax declarations, titles, assessed and market values, and alleged a public purpose. Petitioner deposited 15% of the declared fair market value with the Philippine National Bank and secured a writ of possession on September 21, 1994. On December 14, 1994, the parties entered into an Agreement stipulating that the case would be partially settled, that just compensation would be determined by three court-appointed commissioners, and that P1,786,400.00 would be paid provisionally. Pursuant thereto, Commissioners Palermo M. Lugo, Alfredo Cisneros, and Herbert E. Buot conducted heariCase Digest (G.R. No. 142971)
Facts:
- Expropriation Proceedings and Trial Court Initiation
- On 17 September 1993, the City of Cebu filed Civil Case No. CEB-14632 for eminent domain against spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo, seeking:
- Lot No. 1527 (1,146 sqm; Tax Dec. No. 03472; Title No. 31833; MV P240,660; AV P72,200)
- Lot No. 1528 (793 sqm; of which 478 sqm expropriated; Tax Dec. No. 03450; Title No. 31832; MV of expropriated area P100,380; AV P49,960)
- Purpose: construction of a public relief/access road connecting Gorordo Avenue to General Maxilum Avenue and Magellan Hotel’s rear; total area expropriated 1,624 sqm; assessed value P1,786,400.
- The City deposited P51,156 (15% of FMV per R.A. 7160 §19) with PNB and moved for a writ of possession, granted 21 September 1994.
- Motion to Dismiss and Settlement Agreement
- Respondents moved to dismiss, contending lack of public purpose (benefit to private Cebu Holdings, Inc.), low offer compared to neighboring purchases (P20,000/sqm), and absence of alternative land.
- On 14 December 1994, parties executed an Agreement providing:
- Respondents’ consent to expropriation for public use;
- Provisional payment of P1,786,400 to respondents, without prejudice to final valuation;
- City to take possession of the portion with respondents’ house after 15 days of payment;
- Respondents to deliver titles and demolish structures within 15 days;
- Joint petition for judgment, to be followed by supplemental judgment fixing just compensation per commissioners’ report.
- Commissioners’ Appointment, Reports, and Trial Court Decisions
- Trial court appointed three commissioners: Palermo M. Lugo (Chair, nominated by City), Alfredo Cisneros (nominated by respondents), and Herbert E. Buot (court-designated).
- Initial report led to 7 May 1996 judgment directing payment of P24,865,930 plus fees (Lugo P21,000; Buot P19,000; Cisneros P19,000).
- City’s reconsideration motion argued inclusion of non-expropriated area (315 sqm). On 16 August 1996, commissioners amended valuation of 478 sqm at P12,824.10/sqm = P20,826,339.50; approved by court on 27 December 1996 and decree amended accordingly.
- Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Proceedings
- City elevated to CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 59204), arguing lower courts erred in fixing just compensation; CA decision of 11 October 1999 affirmed the trial court’s valuation in toto.
- City filed petition for review under Rule 45, raising sole issue: point of reckoning for just compensation (date of complaint vs. date of actual taking). Respondents, in their Comment, argued that (a) parties agreed to be bound by commissioners; (b) City failed to timely object and is estopped; and (c) awarded compensation was below actual 1994 value.
Issues:
- Whether just compensation in this expropriation must be determined as of the date of filing of the complaint (17 September 1993) or at the time of actual taking (1994) under R.A. 7160.
- Whether the City, having agreed by contract to be bound by the commissioners’ report and failing to timely object, may challenge the valuation on appeal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)