Title
Evergreen Manufacturing Corp. vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. 218628
Decision Date
Sep 6, 2017
Evergreen Manufacturing contested expropriation of land by Republic-DPWH for road construction, disputing valuation and necessity. Supreme Court fixed just compensation at P33,050/sq.m., awarding interest from 2006, balancing property value at time of taking and avoiding remand delays.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 263014)

Petitioner and Respondent

G.R. No. 218628 – Petitioner: Evergreen Manufacturing Corporation; Respondent: Republic of the Philippines (DPWH)
G.R. No. 218631 – Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines (DPWH); Respondent: Evergreen Manufacturing Corporation

Key Dates

• 22 March 2004 – DPWH filed expropriation complaint and made initial deposit.
• 6 December 2004 – RTC issued writ of possession.
• 21 April 2006 – Parties agreed to DPWH’s possession.
• 15 October 2007 – Court appointed three commissioners.
• 30 June 2011 – RTC Decision fixing just compensation.
• 3 November 2011 – RTC Order denying reconsideration.
• 26 June 2014 – Court of Appeals (CA) Decision modifying compensation.
• 25 May 2015 – CA Resolution denying reconsideration.
• July–August 2015 – Both parties filed Rule 45 petitions with the Supreme Court.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 9 (taking of private property and just compensation).
• Republic Act No. 8974 (procedure and initial deposit requirements for infrastructure expropriations).
• Rules of Court: Rule 45 (certiorari), Rule 67 (compensation appraisal).

Facts

• Subject property: Transfer Certificate of Title No. PT-114857, 1,428.68 sqm.
• Expropriated portion: 173.08 sqm.
• Initial deposit: ₱1,038,480 (100% of BIR zonal valuation at ₱6,000/sqm).
• Evergreen declined negotiated sale; DPWH deposited zonal value and secured possession writ.
• Three commissioners submitted separate valuations: ₱15,000/sqm; ₱30,000/sqm; ₱37,500/sqm.

RTC Ruling

The RTC fixed just compensation at ₱25,000/sqm, totaling ₱4,327,000 less the deposit withdrawn by Evergreen, resulting in ₱3,288,520 net. It denied other reliefs, including consequential damages and interest. Both parties’ motions for reconsideration were denied.

CA Ruling

The CA increased compensation to ₱35,000/sqm, totaling ₱6,057,800 minus the ₱1,038,480 deposit. It affirmed the classification as commercial, relied on two commissioners’ 2008 ocular-based reports, and denied claims for consequential damages and interest.

Issues Presented

  1. Evergreen’s claim for legal interest on the unpaid portion of compensation.
  2. DPWH’s challenge to the CA’s valuation: allegations of hearsay, reliance on non-contemporaneous data, improper use of commercial prices for an industrial classification, and uncritical application of LRTA precedents.

Supreme Court Ruling on Amount of Just Compensation

• Standard: Fair and full equivalent of owner’s loss as of the date of taking.
• Rule 45 limits review to legal errors, yet factual determinations may be revisited under established exceptions.
• Commissioners and lower courts relied on 2000 zonal valuations and 2008 market observations, without evidence pinpointing the 2004 value.
• Zonal value alone is inadequate; classification as commercial was upheld.
• To approximate the 2004 value, the Court averaged the 2000 Supreme Court-affirmed rate (₱26,100/sqm) and the lower 2008 market bound (₱35,000/sqm), yielding ₱33,050/sqm.
• Total just compensation: ₱33,050 × 173.08 sqm = ₱5,720,294.

Supreme Court Ruling on Interest

• Constitution and jurisprudence require prompt and complete compensation, including interest on unpaid balances as forbearance.
• Under RA 8974, the initial deposit does

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.