Title
Tan vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. 170740
Decision Date
May 25, 2007
The Supreme Court ruled that the Public Estates Authority must pay just compensation for land based on current zonal valuation, not 1985 levels.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 170740)

Facts:

  • Julita P. Tan is the petitioner; the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Public Estates Authority (PEA), is the respondent.
  • Tan became the registered owner of a 7,161 square meter parcel of land in Las Piñas City, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 78188.
  • She acquired the property from San Antonio Development Corporation (SADC) through an "Irrevocable and Exclusive Special Power of Attorney" dated April 6, 2001, assuming SADC's tax obligations.
  • On March 29, 1985, PEA requested SADC's permission to enter the property for the construction of the southern abutment of the Zapote Bridge, which SADC granted for a monthly rental of P10,000.
  • Negotiations for the sale of the property between PEA and SADC lasted twenty years without agreement.
  • In October 2000, SADC demanded compensation based on current zonal value and interest for property use since 1985.
  • Tan acquired the property in April 2001, and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) assessed its zonal value at P20,000 per square meter.
  • PEA collected toll fees from the Coastal Road but refused to compensate Tan.
  • A proposed land swap in 2002 was withdrawn by PEA in 2003, leading to PEA filing for expropriation in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), claiming just compensation based on the 1985 zonal value of P2,900 per square meter.
  • Tan argued for compensation based on the current zonal value of P20,000 per square meter.
  • The RTC ordered PEA to pay Tan P94,380,000 based on BIR's valuation, but this was reversed by the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Julita P. Tan, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision.
  • The Court held that the RTC's orders were final and appealable.
  • Just compensation should be b...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that the RTC's orders were final, determining just compensation for the property.
  • PEA's use of certiorari was inappropriate as it served as a substitute for a lost appeal.
  • Under Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, private pr...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.