Case Digest (G.R. No. 222159)
Facts:
Paz E. Rebadulla, et al. v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 222159 and 222171, January 31, 2018, First Division, Tijam, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are members of the Rebadulla family (hereinafter "the Rebadullas"); the respondents are the Republic of the Philippines, the Secretary of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and Engr. Tomas L. Buen, SWIM Project Manager (collectively, "the Government").On March 17, 1997 the DPWH entered and took portions of three titled parcels of land owned by the Rebadullas for its Small Water Impounding Management (SWIM) Project in Macagtas, Catarman, Northern Samar. The DPWH offered P2.50 per square meter based on a 1994 Provincial Appraisal Committee (PAC) valuation; the Rebadullas rejected this offer and sought reappraisal from the PAC and later from the DOF-BLGF, which recommended reappraisal but the PAC declined to change its valuation. No expropriation proceedings were filed, and the lands were used to construct dams.
On October 15, 2002 the Rebadullas demanded P200 per sq. m. and thereafter filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 51, Manila, praying in the alternative for mandamus and damages but expressly seeking payment of just compensation to be fixed by the court, legal interest, moral and exemplary damages against Engr. Buen, and attorney’s fees. The Government’s initial Comment contested mandamus and other matters but was not admitted by the RTC for being late; a subsequent Motion to Dismiss was denied. After trial the RTC rendered a decision dated December 23, 2013 ordering payment of just compensation at P7.00 per sq. m. (based on the BIR zonal valuation), legal interest at 6% per annum from filing of the complaint, and attorney’s fees; the RTC denied damages for lack of proven bad faith. Motions for reconsideration were denied on May 13, 2014.
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In CA-G.R. SP No. 136787 the CA, in a Decision dated February 24, 2015, affirmed the RTC’s determination of just compensation but modified the interest award to 12% per annum and deleted the attorney’s fees award. The CA denied the Rebadullas’ motion for reconsideration on January 7, 2016...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Rebadullas’ suit properly treated as an action for payment of just compensation despite being captioned as one for mandamus and damages (procedural jurisdiction/appropriate remedy)?
- May the courts determine just compensation in this case despite the Government’s contention regarding docket fees and jurisdiction?
- Was the CA correct in fixing just compensation using solely the BIR zonal valuation of P7.00 per square meter?
- Was the area taken by the Government correctly determined at 154,521.49 sq. m.?
- From what date and at what rate should legal interest on the just compensation accrue?
- Were mo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)