Case Summary (G.R. No. 220606)
Factual Background and War-Time Occupation
Before the war, the subject parcels were, with limited exceptions, either rice lands or coconut lands, though some lots were also used as residences by their owners. During the last war, Japanese forces occupied the lands, destroyed existing improvements, and filled the areas with gravel, crushed rock, and earth to construct an asphalt runway for airfield use. After the war, American forces took over the airfield. For the portion of the field belonging to Luisa Santaromana, the United States Army paid her a monthly rental of P64 for its use.
On February 2, 1948, the airfield was turned over to the Republic of the Philippines. The Aeronautics Administration administered it and attempted to reach an agreement with the owners concerning rental payments. Before a satisfactory arrangement was reached, the airfield was withdrawn from the Civil Aeronautics Administration and transferred to the National Airports Corporation, created by Republic Act No. 224 on June 5, 1948. Under that management, Santaromana claimed rental for the entire Lots 507 and 503 and back rentals from June 5, 1948 to February 28, 1949, in the total amount of P886.65, and she was paid a monthly rental of P100.
The National Airports Corporation was later abolished by Executive Order No. 365 on November 10, 1950, and the airfield returned to the Civil Aeronautics Administration. That agency later negotiated with the owners to purchase their lands occupied by the airfield. As no agreement on price was reached, the government filed the condemnation proceedings on May 23, 1952.
Trial Court Proceedings and Commission’s Appraisal
At the outset of the case, none of the defendants questioned the government’s power to expropriate their lands. The trial court appointed a three-man commission to assess the just value of the properties. The Commission performed an ocular inspection and heard testimony from the defendants.
On February 17, 1953, the Commission submitted its findings, with one member dissenting. The majority recommended the payment of P2,000 per hectare for lands found to have been rice lands or coconut lands prior to the war. It also recommended P1.00 per square meter for a 600-square meter portion of certain lots that were used as residential premises by their respective owners. For lots where the unexpropriated portions were found too small for profitable use, it recommended P1,000 per hectare consequential damages.
The dissenting commissioner reasoned that the Japanese use had changed the character of the taken lands from rural to urban after liberation, and he recommended a general price of P0.75 per square meter.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance
On December 8, 1954, the Court of First Instance approved the majority report and rendered judgment in accordance with it. The court also ordered the plaintiff condemnor to pay interest at the legal rate on the respective values of the lands from May 23, 1952, the date of the filing of the complaint, until full payment. It further ordered the deduction of unpaid land taxes and cadastral fees from the total amounts due the defendants.
Only three defendants appealed: the Roman Catholic Church of Zamboanga, Benito R. Zabala, and Luisa Santaromana. Each alleged that the compensation was unreasonable, insisting that at the time the plaintiff occupied the lands on February 2, 1948, the lands were no longer agricultural and had become residential in character.
The Appellants’ Theory and the Solicitor General’s Response
The appellants argued that the Japanese gravel-and-earth filling made the lots unable to return to their former agricultural status. They contended that, had the government not taken the lands, the owners could have utilized them for residential purposes, thus requiring compensation at residential values.
The Solicitor General countered that although appellants owned portions used by the Japanese as an airfield, they did not become owners of the improvements made by the Japanese. He invoked Republic vs. Lara, et al. (96 Phil. 170; 50 Off. Gaz. No. 12, pp. 5778-5789), holding that a Japanese occupant was not regarded as a possessor in bad faith when it used the land for temporary wartime purposes; and that while the defendants-appellants remained owners of their lands, the Republic succeeded to ownership or possession of Japanese construction made for war purposes, absent provisions in the treaty of peace requiring indemnity for such constructions and improvements. The Solicitor General thus urged that, for expropriation purposes, the lands should be classified as agricultural, as dedicated by their owners prior to the war.
Proper Classification of the Taken Lands: Agricultural Versus Residential
The Court rejected the view that Republic vs. Lara controlled the issue in these appeals. The Court distinguished Lara by noting that its question concerned whether the owners could recover the value of construction or improvements introduced by the Japanese for use of an airfield. In Lara, the Court had held that the owners could not recover compensation for those improvements because the Republic succeeded to ownership of the enemy constructions.
In the present case, the issue was different. It concerned whether appellants’ lands should be classified as agricultural (as before the war) or as residential (as allegedly converted after Japanese occupation). The Court observed that at the time the Japanese forces occupied the lands, the character of the properties was admittedly agricultural. It further found that from the time of taking by the Japanese, the owners never recovered or regained actual use and possession.
In eminent domain, the Court held that the owner should recover only for what the owner actually loses at the time the property is taken, citing Prov. Gov’t of Rizal, Rizal vs. Caro, 58 Phil. 308, Republic vs. Lara, and American authority discussed in the decision. It held that the Japanese enhancement of value by converting agricultural land into land suitable for residential use did not give the owners a right to claim compensation for residential lands they never had and could not have lost. Since what was taken was agricultural land, the Court ruled that the compensation had to be for agricultural land.
The Court added that none of the appellants had questioned the trial court’s valuation for agricultural lands—P0.20 per square meter or P2,000 per hectare—and it therefore found no basis to modify that component.
War Destruction of Improvements and the War Damage Commission
As to the damages caused by the Japanese occupation—specifically, that improvements were destroyed and the lands were rendered unfit for agricultural purposes—the Court held that appellants should have filed the corresponding claims before the War Damage Commission. It ruled that it was not for the plaintiff Republic to indemnify appellants for those war-caused damages, because the Republic was not responsible for the destruction and consequences of the Japanese occupation.
Interest, Rentals, and the Timing of Compensation
A separate issue concerned whether appellants Roman Catholic Church of Zamboanga and Benito R. Zabala were entitled to rentals for the use of their properties from February 2, 1948 (when the plaintiff occupied the airfield) up to May 23, 1952 (when the condemnation proceedings were filed). The Court acknowledged that appellants had to be compensated for the use and possession of their properties by plaintiff before the commencement of proceedings. However, the Court emphasized a uniform rule: such compensation was not to be awarded in the form of rentals. Instead, it must be paid as legal interest from the date the entity exercising eminent domain takes possession, ceasing to earn interest only upon actual payment or when the amounts are deposited in court.
The Court cited that rule as reflected in Philippine Railway Co. vs. Solon, 13 Phil. 34, Philippine Railway Co. vs. Duran, 33 Phil. 156, Manila Railway Co. vs. Attorney-General, 41 Phil. 163, and Republic vs. Lara, and further referenced Republic vs. Leon Gonzales, 94 Phil. 956 (50 Off. Gaz. No. 6, 2461) and Republic vs. Deleste (G. R. L-7208, May 23, 1956). Applying the rule, it held that the Church and Zabala were entitled to claim legal interest on their respective amounts due from February 2, 1948 until August 1952, when plaintiff deposited in court their provisional value. The Court also held that interest would continue to run on the unpaid balances left after the provisional deposit until full payment.
Land Taxes and Cadastral Fees
With respect to land taxes and cadastral fees, the Court ruled that because the Church and Zabala were allowed legal interest for the period from the date plaintiff started to occupy their properties as compensation for that use, they had to bear the taxes and fees accruing from that date up to the filing of the case. The Court noted that this question was not raised by Santaromana, likely because she received rentals for the use of her land—first from the United States Army and later from the National Airports Corporation—which aligned with the trial court’s order that she, in turn, bear the taxes and fees due at the date of filing.
Consequential Damages for Excluded Portions: Santaromana’s Claim
The last issue involved Santaromana’s contention that she should have been awarded consequential damages for remaining areas of her lands excluded from expropriation because they were allegedly rendered completely useless by the condemnation of the larger portions. The Commission had recommended consequential damages only to some defendants whose unexpropriated portions were considered too small for profitable use. In Santaromana’s case, the Commission found that her excluded portions suffered no consequential damages because they were situated at a fairly safe distance from the runway and the sizes were large enough for profitable use.
The Court held
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 220606)
- The case involved two appeals from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga in Civil Case No. 357, where the Republic of the Philippines instituted expropriation of 280,885 square meters of land for the lengthening of the Zamboanga (Moret) Airstrip.
- The joint appeal of Roman Catholic Church of Zamboanga and Benito R. Zabala (G. R. No. L-9556) was filed directly with the Supreme Court due to the amount involved.
- The appeal of Luisa Santaromana was first filed with the Court of Appeals but was later elevated to the Supreme Court (G. R. No. L-12630) to be decided jointly with G. R. No. L-9556, as both appeals arose from the same expropriation case.
- Only three defendants appealed the trial court’s judgment: Roman Catholic Church of Zamboanga, Benito R. Zabala, and Luisa Santaromana.
- The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision regarding legal interest and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The Republic of the Philippines acted as plaintiff and appellee seeking condemnation of privately owned lands for an airstrip expansion.
- Bienvenido Garcellano, et al. were impleaded as defendants, and the appealed decision resulted from their opposition only as to compensation, not as to the right to expropriate.
- The Roman Catholic Church of Zamboanga and Benito R. Zabala appealed directly to the Supreme Court in G. R. No. L-9556.
- Luisa Santaromana appealed to the Supreme Court in G. R. No. L-12630 after elevation from the Court of Appeals.
- The trial court appointed a three-man commission to assess the just value of the condemned properties.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the appealed compensation awards and addressed three principal questions raised by the appellants.
Key Factual Background
- Before the war, the expropriated lands were generally agricultural, consisting of rice lands or coconut lands, except for a few lots used as the owners’ residences.
- During the war, Japanese forces occupied the lands, destroyed improvements, filled them with gravel and earth, crushed rock, and constructed an asphalt runway for use as an airfield.
- After the war, American forces took over the airfield.
- On February 2, 1948, the airfield was turned over to the Republic of the Philippines.
- The Aeronautics Administration administered the airfield and attempted to reach agreement with owners on rentals.
- The airfield was later withdrawn from the Civil Aeronautics Administration and transferred to the National Airports Corporation, created by Republic Act No. 224 (June 5, 1948).
- Under the National Airports Corporation’s management, Luisa Santaromana claimed and received monthly rental of P100 for the entire lots Nos. 507 and 503, and received back rentals from June 5, 1948 to February 28, 1949 totaling P886.65.
- The National Airports Corporation was abolished by Executive Order No. 365 (November 10, 1950), and administration reverted to the Civil Aeronautics Administration.
- On May 23, 1952, because the parties failed to agree on the purchase price, the Republic filed condemnation proceedings.
Trial Court’s Compensation Findings
- None of the defendants questioned the right of the government to expropriate their lands.
- The trial court accepted the commission’s valuation framework and rendered judgment based on the commission’s report.
- The Commission on Appraisals made an ocular inspection and heard defendants’ testimony.
- On February 17, 1953, the commission submitted its findings with one member dissenting.
- The majority recommended:
- P2,000 per hectare for lands found to have been ricelands or coconut lands before the war;
- P1.00 per square meter for a 600-square meter portion of four lots used as residences; and
- P1,000 per hectare as consequential damages for lots whose unexpropriated portions were too small for profitable use.
- The dissenting member opined that the land character had changed from rural to urban after liberation and recommended a general price of P0.75 per square meter.
- On December 8, 1954, the trial court approved the majority report and issued a judgment in accordance with it.
- The trial court also ordered legal interests at the legal rate on the respective values from May 23, 1952 (the filing date of the complaint) until full payment, deducting unpaid land taxes and cadastral fees.
Issues on Appeal
- The appellants contested the reasonableness of the compensation awarded for their respective properties.
- The appellants argued that when the plaintiff occupied the properties on February 2, 1948, the lands were no longer agricultural but had become residential in character.
- Appellants maintained that Japanese gravel and earth filling prevented the lots from being restored to their pre-war status as rice or coconut lands, and that absent government taking, the lots could have been used for residential purposes.
- The Solicitor General argued that appellants’ lands should be classified as agricultural for expropriation purposes because the Republic succeeded only to the relevant legal position regarding enemy war-time occupation, and the Republic was not obligated to indemnify for the Japanese improvements as constructions.
- A further issue arose from Luisa Santaromana’s claim for consequential damages for excluded portions allegedly rendered completely useless by condemnation of the larger areas.
Appellants’ Main Theory
- The appellants’ theory was that Japanese filling and wartime transformation altered the lands’ character such that the government had to pay the higher valuation appropriate for residential land.
- The appellants relied on the premise that they could have used the transformed lots for residential purposes had the government not expropriated them.
- The appellants asserted that because they could not return the lots to their prior agricultural condition, compensation should reflect the post-war residential character.
Solicitor General’s Counter-Arguments
- The Solicitor General relied on Republic vs. Lara to argue that owners did not recover compensation for Japanese-made improvements because the Republic succeede