Title
Republic vs. Spouses Alforte
Case
G.R. No. 217051
Decision Date
Aug 22, 2018
A 300-sqm land, acquired via Free Patent, was partially taken for a road project. SC ruled a 60-meter easement applies, but significant impairment may entitle owners to just compensation. Case remanded for further determination.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 199161)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Property
    • Petitioners: Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Engr. Rebecca J. Roces (District Engineer) and Engr. Victorino M. Del Socorro, Jr. (Project Engineer).
    • Respondents: Spouses Cornelio and Susana Alforte, registered owners of a 300-square-meter parcel covered by TCT No. 29597, originally issued under a March 21, 1956 Free Patent and April 14, 1956 Original Certificate of Title No. 235 pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act).
  • Road Project and Expropriation Proceedings
    • DPWH’s Naga City–Milaor Bypass Road will traverse 127 sq.m. of respondents’ land.
    • Respondents filed Civil Case No. RTC 2012-0013 seeking just compensation of ₱381,000 for the affected area, plus attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
    • Petitioners answered, invoking Section 112 of CA 141 (as amended by PD No. 1361) imposing a 60-meter-wide right-of-way easement in favor of the Government without compensation except for affected improvements, and Section 44 of PD 1529 on statutory liens.
  • Trial Court Dispositions
    • July 28, 2014 Partial Decision (RTC Branch 22, Naga City):
      • Held respondents entitled to just compensation despite CA 141’s easement;
      • Ordered re-opening for determination of just compensation, deposit of assessed value (₱190,500), and appointment of three commissioners.
    • March 3, 2015 Order: Denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, reiterating that the easement width (60 m) did not cover the 127 sq.m. taken and that constitutional due process and just-compensation guarantees prevail.

Issues:

  • Entitlement to Just Compensation
    • Whether respondents, as owners of land originally acquired by free patent, are precluded from claiming just compensation by the perpetual 60-meter right-of-way easement under Section 112 of CA 141.
    • Whether judicial precedents (NIA v. CA; Republic v. Andaya) uphold the Government’s easement without compensation.
  • Scope of the Easement and Taking
    • Whether the 60-meter “width” limitation in Section 112 refers to linear width rather than area, rendering the trial court’s 127 sq.m. calculation erroneous.
    • Whether the enforced easement results in practical destruction or material impairment of the remaining property, thus constituting a taking requiring compensation.
  • Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
    • Whether respondents were required to exhaust administrative remedies (e.g., Commission on Audit) before judicial filing.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.