Case Digest (G.R. No. 36096)
Facts:
The Provincial Government of Rizal v. Filomena Caro de Araullo et al., G.R. No. 36096, August 16, 1933, the Supreme Court, Vickers, J., writing for the Court. The appeal arises from the Court of First Instance of Rizal's decisions of March 21 and 23, 1931, and an April 17, 1931 order fixing damages for property taken for the extension of Taft Avenue; Malcolm, Villa-Real, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.The plaintiff-appellant is the Provincial Government of Rizal (hereafter "plaintiff"); the original defendants and appellees are numerous private owners including Filomena Caró de Araullo, and others listed in the record; Amalia Arcega de Basa and Ramon Agtarap also filed appeals as defendants and appellants against portions of the trial court's award. The complaint for condemnation was filed May 31, 1928; defendants generally admitted the right to expropriate and the only contested matter was the amount of just compensation.
After the complaint was filed the court appointed four commissions (naming their members) to view the premises, hear the parties, and assess damages; hearings before the commissioners occurred in 1929–1930. The plaintiff produced Colin M. Hoskins, a real estate broker and appraiser, who testified as to market values in 1927 and later. The provincial engineers and officials had, however, laid out and taken possession of the land with owners' consent in 1927 when the Taft Avenue extension was located and opened; some improvements were removed or destroyed before the 1928 filing.
The Court of First Instance adopted many of the commissioners' valuations and in several instances increased appraisals; it fixed values and awards (decisions dated March 21 and 23, 1931 and order April 17, 1931). The Provincial Government appealed those awards to the Supreme Court, attacking principally the trial court's choice of valuation date and numerous individual lot and improvements valuations. Amalia Arcega de Basa and Ramon Agtarap separately ap...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- When must just compensation for land taken by eminent domain be measured: at the time the plaintiff actually took possession and laid out the improvement (1927), at the time the condemnation complaint was filed (May 31, 1928), or at the time of the hearings before the commissioners (1929–1930)?
- Did the trial court err in the specific valuations it approved for the numerous lots claimed by defendants, or should many awards be reduced to the market values shown by competent evidence for the appropriate valuation date?
- Did the trial court err in approving the commissioners' valuations of the improvements (fruit trees, walls, houses) on the affected lots?
- Were the defendants properly awarded costs for preparing subdivision sketches, issuance of new certifi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)