G.R. No. 203039 - Republic vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands

12 February 1998: DPWH filed expropriation complaint in RTC Las Piñas (Branch 275)
25 November 1998: RTC fixed land just compensation at ₱40,000/m²
11 December 1998: “Finality” certificate issued as to DPWH’s failure to appeal
16 December 1998: BPI filed motion for partial new trial to include its building
6 January 1999: RTC granted partial new trial; proceeding reset
7 September 1999: Ocular inspection and ex parte presentation of building evidence
10 September 1999: RTC awarded ₱2,633,000 as just compensation for BPI’s building
14 February 2000: RTC granted DPWH’s motion to vacate the 10 September 1999 decision
September 2000: Resubmission of commissioner nominations; DPWH challenged building claim
3 February 2003: RTC fixed building compensation at ₱1,905,600 based on tax declaration
14 September 2011: Court of Appeals affirmed RTC’s 3 February 2003 Order
6 August 2012: CA denied DPWH’s motion for reconsideration
11 September 2013: Supreme Court decision

1987 Constitution, Article III § 9 (Takings clause)
Rule 13, Sections 9 & 13, Rules of Court (service of judgments)
Rule 41 § 3 and Rule 37 § 1, Rules of Civil Procedure (appeal and new‐trial periods)
Rule 67 § 6, Rules of Court (expropriation: consequential damages)

DPWH did not contest propriety of expropriation; RTC constituted commissioners, who recommended ₱40,000/m².
RTC’s 25 November 1998 Decision awarded ₱11,240,000 to BPI (281 m²) and ₱7,080,000 to Villanueva (177 m²), net of deposits.
The acting clerk certified that the 25 November 1998 Decision became final as of 11 December 1998 because the Solicitor General did not appeal.
BPI filed a timely motion for partial new trial on 16 December 1998 to include its building, asserting receipt of the decision on 1 December 1998.
RTC granted partial new trial (6 January 1999), took ex parte evidence, performed ocular inspection (7 September 1999), and awarded ₱2,633,000 for the building (10 September 1999).
DPWH successfully moved to vacate that award on procedural grounds (14 February 2000), prompting reconstitution of commissioners.
Commissioners’ conflicting valuations (₱2,633,000 vs. ₱1,905,600 based on tax declaration) were submitted.
RTC adopted ₱1,905,600 as just compensation for the building (3 February 2003).
CA dismissed DPWH’s appeal (14 September 2011), holding BPI’s new‐trial motion timely and that consequential damages were proper even without actual physical taking of the building.
CA denied reconsideration (6 August 2012).

Did the RTC’s 25 November 1998 Decision become final and executory before BPI’s motion for partial new trial?
Was the award of additional just compensation for BPI’s building legally unfounded?

Service and Finality of Judgment

Under Rule 13 § 9, judgments must be served personally or by registered mail; proof under § 13 requires return receipt, server’s affidavit, or written admission.
No proof of service to BPI exists in the record; without proof, the 15-day period to move for new trial under Rule 37 § 1 did not commence against BPI.
BPI’s written admission of receipt on 1 December 1998 fixed the date from which the 15-day period ran, rendering its 16 December 1998 motion timely.

Consequential Damages for the Building

Eminent domain requires just compensation (market value) under the 1987 Constitution, Art. III § 9.
Rule 67 § 6 allows assessment of consequential damages to property not taken if its value is impaired by the exprop

On 12 February 1998, the DPWH filed an expropriation case in the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 275, for portions of land owned by BPI (281 m² under TCT No. T-59156) and Bayani Villanueva (177 m² under TCT No. T-64556) to construct the Zapote–Alabang Fly-Over.
Neither BPI nor Villanueva contested the expropriation’s propriety; the trial court appointed a Board of Commissioners to assess just compensation.
The Board’s 29 September 1998 report recommended ₱40,000 per square meter as fair market value.
By decision of 25 November 1998, the trial court awarded BPI ₱11,240,000 for land (net payment ₱10,607,750 after provisional deposit) and Villanueva ₱7,080,000 (net payment ₱4,425,000 after deposit).

On 15 December 1998, the branch clerk certified that the 25 November decision became final, executory, and unappealable as of 11 December 1998, noting the Solicitor General’s failure to appeal.
On 16 December 1998, BPI filed a timely motion for partial new trial to determine just compensation for its building—excluded from the 25 November decision—claiming receipt of the decision only on 1 December 1998.

The trial court granted BPI’s motion by order of 6 January 1999 and allowed BPI to present evidence ex parte due to DPWH’s counsel absence.
On 1 September 1999, BPI’s building exhibits were admitted; the court appointed OIC Leticia B. Agbayani as commissioner to inspect the building.
Agbayani’s ocular inspection report found a newly constructed building set back for code compliance with surrounding improvements.
By decision of 10 September 1999, the trial court awarded BPI ₱2,633,000 as just compensation for consequential damages to the building.

DPWH moved for reconsideration, arguing procedural defects under Rule 67, Sections 5–8; on 14 February 2000, the trial court granted the motion, vacated the