Title
Republic vs. Barcelon
Case
G.R. No. 226021
Decision Date
Jul 24, 2019
DPWH expropriated a 52-sqm property for a road project; RTC fixed just compensation at P9,000/sqm, upheld by SC, with adjusted interest on unpaid balance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 226021)

Applicable Law

The applicable law for this case is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly the provisions relating to the taking of property for public use, as well as Republic Act No. 8974, which provides guidelines for expropriation proceedings.

Background and Initial Proceedings

On February 8, 2008, the petitioner filed a complaint for expropriation against the respondents, claiming that the property was needed for a government infrastructure project. A Development Bank of the Philippines check amounting to P413,418.54 was deposited to compensate the respondents, who later moved for the release of a balance which turned out to be required to meet the full zonal value of the property.

Board of Commissioners' Valuation

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) constituted a Board of Commissioners to determine just compensation. The petitioner argued for a valuation of P2,750.00 per square meter based on zonal value. In contrast, the respondents contested this, seeking P10,000.00 to P15,000.00 per square meter based on prevailing market values in a high-intensity commercial zone. The Board ultimately recommended P10,000.00 as just compensation.

RTC's Ruling

The RTC, in its decision dated December 12, 2013, set the just compensation at P9,000.00 per square meter for a total of P468,000.00, after deducting the initial deposit. It directed the payment of interest on this amount and denied additional claims for improvements on the property due to lack of substantiated evidence.

Court of Appeals (CA) Decision

The petitioner appealed the RTC's decision regarding the compensation amount and interest. The CA upheld the RTC's valuation, finding it anchored in relevant considerations, particularly the proximity and context of the property compared to recently settled cases. The CA reaffirmed that zonal valuation alone does not determine just compensation.

Issues Presented

The main issue in question was whether the CA erred in sustaining the RTC's valuation of just compensation. The petitioner contended that relevant factors had not been appropriately considered while asserting that the expropriated land was situated in an area with informal settlers, thus warranting a lower compensation.

Legal Principles and Rulings

The Supreme Court defined just compensation as the fair market value of the property at the time of taking. It recognized that the determination of this value requires judicial evaluation of reliable evidence and is deemed a question of fact, not typically reviewable by the Supreme Court. Since the factual findings of the RTC were affirmed by the CA, they were binding, and the Court found no compelling reason to disturb the decisions made below.

Final Rulings on Interest

The Supreme Court modified the CA's ruling on interest rates, clarifying that no interest

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.