Title
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 146587
Decision Date
Jul 2, 2002
Expropriation case: 1969 land acquisition for public use; 1979 compensation fixed at P6/sq.m. with interest. Non-payment led to legal disputes; SC upheld 1979 decision, denied return of property, and ordered payment of just compensation.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 95146)

Facts:

  • Expropriation proceedings initiated in 1969
    • On September 19, 1969, the Philippine Information Agency (PIA) filed Civil Cases Nos. 3839-M to 3842-M in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan to expropriate 544,980 sqm along MacArthur Highway, Malolos, Bulacan, for radio‐transmitter facilities.
    • PIA deposited ₱517,558.80 as provisional just compensation.
  • 1979 RTC decision and subsequent non‐payment
    • On February 26, 1979, the RTC rendered a final decision condemning the properties, fixing compensation at ₱6.00/sqm with 12% legal interest from September 19, 1969, and awarding costs.
    • The 76,589 sqm formerly owned by Luis Santos (predecessor‐in‐interest of respondents) formed part of the expropriated tract but remained unpaid.
  • Heirs’ motions and partial release of deposit in 1984
    • On May 9, 1984, respondents manifested non‐payment and sought implementation; on June 7, 1984, the RTC issued a writ of execution.
    • On July 10, 1984, the RTC ordered release of ₱72,683.55 (respondents’ share of the 1969 deposit) via the provincial treasurer.
  • Presidential transfers and renewed motions
    • By Proclamation No. 22 (1999), President Estrada transferred 20 ha to Bulacan State University and 5 ha for carabao propagation; the remainder stayed with PIA.
    • On September 16, 1999, PIA moved to deposit ₱4,664,000 as compensation; respondents counter-moved to revalue at ₱5,000/sqm or to return the land.
    • On March 1, 2000, the RTC vacated its 1979 decision as “unenforceable by prescription,” denied PIA’s motion, and ordered return of the property. The Court of Appeals denied PIA’s certiorari petition.
  • Supreme Court proceedings
    • PIA petitioned the Supreme Court, urging public‐interest consideration and urging decision on the merits.
    • The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the CA and RTC orders, and reinstated the 1979 decision for immediate execution.

Issues:

  • Prescription of execution
    • Does Section 6, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court bar execution of the 1979 judgment by motion after five years?
    • Did respondents’ 1984 motions or partial release of deposit interrupt the five-year prescriptive period?
  • Availability of property recovery
    • May respondents recover possession of the expropriated land instead of demanding just compensation?
    • Was PIA’s transfer under Proclamation No. 22 valid despite non‐payment?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.