Case Summary (G.R. No. 202051)
Initial Negotiations and Dispute
• April 2011: DPWH notifies spouses of road traversing 162 m² of their lot.
• DPWH offers ₱243,000 (₱1,500/m²) as just compensation.
• May 2006: DPWH withdraws offer, cites CA No. 141 easement (20 m widened to 60 m by PD 635) on lands from Free Patent, payable only for improvements.
• Spouses protest (May 2011), claim private status under TCT, assert market value ₱450,000, demand project details and compensation.
Trial Court Proceedings and RTC Order
• October 2011: Spouses file complaint for just compensation, damages, injunction.
• Petitioners move to dismiss (Aug 2011), argue CA 141 easement and lack of cause of action, failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
• RTC (Oct 2011) denies dismissal; notes exception to exhaustion where urgent judicial relief is needed.
• January 2012: RTC orders spouses to remove obstructions; DPWH to pay ₱3,000 for improvements and deposit ₱36,450 for land value per tax declaration.
• May 24, 2012: RTC orders DPWH to pay ₱243,000 as just compensation for traversed portion, reasoning that government waived easement by not opposing subdivision within 25 years.
Issues on Appeal
Petitioners raise questions of law:
- Applicability of CA 141 easement over land originally public.
- Whether Section 8 (Expropriation) or Section 5 (Quit Claim) of RA 8974 IRR governs acquisition.
- Alleged waiver of easement by government’s silence on subdivision.
Applicability of CA No. 141 and Government Easement
• Land’s public‐land origin under Free Patent carries a perpetual 60 m government right‐of‐way (Sec. 112, CA 141 as amended by PD 635 and PD 1361).
• Subsequent sale or TCT issuance does not extinguish this reservation.
• Supreme Court holds easement applies “ipso facto” over patented lands, free of charge, save for improvements.
• Government did not waive easement by failing to oppose subdivision; reservation is subsisting and noted in TCT.
Mode of Acquisition Under RA No. 8974 IRR
• Section 5 (Quit Claim) applies when land is acquired under special laws (CA 141).
• Government may take immediate possession of the easement strip and obtain a quitclaim without land payment, only damages for improvements.
• DPWH must secure spouses’ quitclaim for the 162 m² traversed by the bypass.
Taking of Remaining Property and Just Compensation
• Reduction of spouses’ lot from 300 m² to 138 m² materially impairs value, constituting a “taking” under eminent domain.
•
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 202051)
Factual Antecedents
- Spouses Ildefonso B. Regulto and Francia R. Regulto are registered owners of a 300 m² parcel in Mabel, Naga City (TCT No. 086-2010000231).
- They acquired the land in February 1994 by deed of absolute sale from attorney-in-fact of Bienvenido and Beatriz Santos.
- The parcel originated from a 7,759 m² tract granted by Free Patent (OCT No. 235, April 14, 1956).
- In April 2011, DPWH Second Engineering District notified them that the Naga City–Milaor Bypass Road would traverse 162 m² of their property.
- DPWH initially offered ₱243,000 (₱1,500/m²) as just compensation, then withdrew, citing a 60 m government easement under C.A. No. 141 (as amended by P.D. No. 635), with payment only for improvements.
Administrative Correspondence
- May 11, 2006: DPWH through Engr. Valdez withdrew compensation offer, invoked free-patent easement reservation.
- May 30, 2011: Spouses Regulto protested, claimed land ceased being public once TCT issued; asserted market value of ₱450,000 plus BIR zonal value.
- They demanded Program of Works and Sketch Plan; DPWH furnished plan but maintained easement stance.
Trial Court Proceedings
- October 8, 2011: Spouses Regulto filed complaint for just compensation, damages, and injunctive relief before RTC Naga City, Branch 62.
- Alleged deceit and bad faith by DPWH; asserted their land lay outside the 60 m reserved strip and was private.
- August 5, 2011: Petitioners moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action and failure to exhaust administrative remedies (no IROW Committee appeal).
- O