Title
Republic vs. Spouses Alforte
Case
G.R. No. 217051
Decision Date
Aug 22, 2018
A 300-sqm land, acquired via Free Patent, was partially taken for a road project. SC ruled a 60-meter easement applies, but significant impairment may entitle owners to just compensation. Case remanded for further determination.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 189293)

Procedural Posture

The trial court issued a partial decision on July 28, 2014, declaring the Alfortes entitled to just compensation under the Constitution, re-opening the case for determination of amount by commissioners, and ordering deposit of assessed value. A March 3, 2015 order denied the DPWH’s motion for reconsideration. The petitioners brought this Petition for Review on Certiorari directly to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether respondents are entitled to just compensation under the 1987 Constitution for the 127 square meters taken by the DPWH, despite Section 112 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, which imposes a 60-meter-wide perpetual easement for public highways free of compensation except for damaged improvements.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Sections 1 and 9 (due process and just compensation)
• Commonwealth Act No. 141, Section 112, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1361 (statutory right-of-way easement up to 60 meters)
• Presidential Decree No. 1529, Section 44 (statutory liens valid against subsequent purchasers)
• Rule 67, Rules of Civil Procedure (condemnation proceedings and appointment of commissioners)
• Jurisprudence: National Irrigation Administration v. Court of Appeals (2000); Republic v. Andaya (2007); Spouses Regulto (2016); Bartolata v. Republic (2017)

Petitioners’ Arguments

Petitioners contend that Section 112 of CA 141 grants the government an easement up to 60 meters in width over land originally patented, free of cost except for improvements. That lien follows the land under PD 1529 and was upheld in NIA v. CA and Republic v. Andaya. The trial court erred in characterizing the 60-meter measure as 60 square meters. They also argue respondents failed to exhaust administrative remedies with the Commission on Audit.

Respondents’ Arguments

The Alfortes maintain that the Constitution’s guarantee of just compensation for any taking by the State prevails over CA 141. Once the property became private, they argue, constitutional protections apply in full. They deny any requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The petition is partially granted.

  1. Title No. 29597 contains a proviso subjecting it to the Public Land Act and PD 1529. Under Section 112, as amended, a statutory easement up to 60 meters in width exists in favor of the government, free of compensation except for improvements. Following Republic v. Spouses Regulto, this easement applied to the Alfortes’ land originally granted by free patent even after sale. Respondents must execute a quitclaim for the 127 square-meter strip.
  2. The appropriation of nearly half (127/300 sqm) of the parcel may materially impair the remaining land, constituting a “taking” of the whole under e

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.