Case Summary (G.R. No. 194190)
Petitioner
The DPWH initiated an expropriation action on April 23, 1990, seeking to widen a public road and acquire affected private lands.
Respondents
Francisco and Carmelita Llamas, owners of several adjacent parcels partially affected by the road-widening project, intervened to claim just compensation.
Key Dates
• April 23, 1990 – DPWH files expropriation case (Civil Case No. 90-1069).
• Nov. 2, 1993 – Commissioners recommend P12,000/sqm valuation.
• Jan. 27, 1994 – Llamas file motion to intervene.
• Mar. 21, 1994 – Answer-in-intervention asserts 298 sqm taken.
• Aug. 2, 1994 – Motion for immediate partial compensation.
• May 29, 1996 – RTC order excludes Llamas’s lots.
• Oct. 8, 2007 – RTC orders payment for 41 sqm only; denies compensation for two subdivision road lots.
• May 19, 2008 – RTC denies reconsideration.
• Oct. 14, 2010 – CA grants Llamas P12,000/sqm for 237 sqm with 12% interest.
• Jan. 25, 2017 – SC affirms CA decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 9 (Takings clause: just compensation)
• Rule 67, Sec. 10, Rules of Court (interest on compensation)
• Presidential Decree No. 957, as amended by PD 1216 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protective Decree)
• Civil Code Arts. 725–726 (elements of a valid donation)
• Key Jurisprudence: White Plains Ass’n, Inc. v. Legaspi (1991, 1998 clarifications), Republic v. Ortigas (2014)
Procedural History Before the RTC and CA
The RTC of Parañaque granted intervention to the Llamas spouses in 1994 but, in 2007, awarded compensation only for 41 sqm of one lot, ruling two subdivision road lots non-compensable as “no longer owned” and devoted to community use. A 2008 motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals, in 2010, reversed and ordered P12,000/sqm for a total of 237 sqm (including the road lots), plus 12% interest from taking.
Issue on Appeal
Whether the subdivision road lots covered by TCT No. 179165, subject to an easement of right of way but not donated or otherwise transferred to government, remain privately owned and thus entitled to just compensation under the 1987 Constitution.
Nature of Subdivision Road Lots and Donation Doctrine
Subdivision road lots retain private ownership until a positive act—donation, purchase, or expropriation—transfers them to government. A compulsory “donation” under PD 957, Sec. 31 conflicts with Civil Code Arts. 725–726, which require animus donandi (donative intent) and a gratuitous act free of external compulsion.
Jurisprudential Clarifications on Compulsory Cession
The 1991 White Plains Ass’n decision initially suggested mandatory cession, but its 1994 resolution and the 1998 White Plains Homeowners Ass’n decision expressly repudiated any compulsion to donate subdivision roads—characterizing forced cession as an “illegal taking.” Republic v. Ortigas (2014) reaffirmed that private roads remain private until
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 194190)
Facts of the Case
- On April 23, 1990, the DPWH filed Civil Case No. 90-1069 for expropriation to widen Dr. A. Santos Avenue (Sucat Road) in Parañaque City, naming 26 defendants.
- Commissioners appointed by the RTC recommended on November 2, 1993 that just compensation be set at ₱12,000.00 per square meter for the expropriated areas.
- On January 27, 1994, Francisco and Carmelita Llamas (“the Llamas Spouses”) moved to intervene as they claimed properties affected by the road-widening project had been excluded.
- After intervention was allowed, the Llamas Spouses’ March 21, 1994 Answer-in-Intervention alleged that 298 square meters were taken from three parcels:
- 102 sqm from Lot 4, Block 3 (TCT No. 217167)
- 84 sqm from Lot 1 (TCT No. 179165)
- 112 sqm from Lot 2 (TCT No. 179165)
- On August 2, 1994, they moved for payment of 40% of the zonal value as immediate partial compensation.
- DPWH’s December 9, 1994 Comment/Opposition clarified that only 41 sqm in TCT No. 179165 was affected and did not contest the ₱12,000.00 per sqm valuation but noted no improvements.
- The RTC’s May 29, 1996 Order directed payment of just compensation for other defendants; the Llamas Spouses’ lands were omitted.
- In 2002, the Llamas Spouses sought enforcement and a writ of execution, prompting DPWH to file Comments and a joint motion to suspend proceedings pending submission of certified titles and tax documents.
- At an August 8, 2005 hearing, DPWH asserted non-payment was due to the Llamas Spouses’ failure to submit authentic documents.
Regional Trial Court Rulings
- October 8, 2007 Order:
- Directed DP