Case Digest (G.R. No. 231913)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works & Highways; Engineer Simplicio D. Gonzales, District Engineer, Second Engineering District of Camarines Sur; and Engineer Victorino M. Del Socorro, Jr. v. Spouses Ildefonso B. Regulto and Francia R. Regulto, G.R. No. 202051, April 18, 2016, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The Spouses Regulto are registered owners of a 300-square-meter parcel in Mabel, Naga City, covered by TCT No. 086-2010000231, which originated from a 7,759-square-meter tract granted by free patent and registered under OCT No. 235. In April 2011 the DPWH informed the Spouses Regulto that the Naga City–Milaor Bypass Road would traverse a 162-square-meter portion of their lot and initially offered P243,000 (P1,500 per sq. m.). The DPWH later withdrew the offer and asserted no obligation to pay just compensation for the land portion because the land originated from a free patent and is subject to the government’s easement/right-of-way under Commonwealth Act No. 141 as amended (and related P.D. No. 635 and P.D. No. 1361), with payment only for improvements.
The Spouses Regulto protested and, on October 8, 2011, filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 62 for payment of just compensation and damages and sought injunctive relief. The petitioners moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the RTC denied the motion on October 17, 2011, finding the complaint alleged nonpayment of just compensation and that urgency justified bypassing administrative exhaustion. The petitioners filed an Answer reiterating that C.A. No. 141 and the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 8974 permit acquisition by quitclaim without payment for the land (Section 5 IRR), and moved for writ of possession.
The RTC ordered respondents to remove obstructions and ordered petitioners to deposit amounts for improvements and assessed value; it ultimately rendered an Order dated May 24, 2012 directing the petitioners to pay P243,000 as just compensation for the land traversed by the project, concluding that the government had waived its easement when it did not oppose the subdivision and sale of lots derived from the original free-patent tract. The petitioner...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court entertain the Rule 45 petition even though the petitioners did not first appeal to the Court of Appeals (i.e., is direct review proper where only questions of law are raised)?
- Does a legal easement/right-of-way in favor of the Government under C.A. No. 141, Sec. 112 apply to land that originated from a free patent and thus bar payment of just compensation for the 162-sqm strip?
- Is acquisition under the facts governed by the quitclaim procedure of Section 5, IRR of R.A. No. 8974 (no payment for land) or by expropriation procedures (Section 8)?
- Did the enforcement of the Government’s easement result in a compensable taking of the Spouses Regulto’s remaining parce...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)