Reckoning Date of Valuation

8/13/2019 Reckoning Date of Valuation

1/25

Policy Guidelines onDetermination of Just

Compensation

(Culled from the OSG General

Guidelines on Expropriation)


2/25

I

THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY MUST BEDETERMINED EITHER AS OF THE DATE OFTHE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY OR THE

FILING OF THE COMPLAINT WHICHEVERCOMES FIRST;

Manansan vs. Republic, 498 SCRA 348 [2006]

Tan vs. Republic,523 SCRA 203 [2007]


3/25

Manansan vs. Republic, 498 SCRA 348 [2006]

The rule is that the value of the property must bedetermined either as of the date of the taking of theproperty or the filing of the complaint, whichever comesfirst.[22] In this case, the complaint was filed on April 17,

1979, and the trial court issued the writ of possessionon January 10, 1981. The City Treasurer, City Assessor andthe AACI based their assessment reports as of 1995 andnot as of 1979 or a difference of 16 years. Indeed, the fairmarket value of the property in 1979 cannot be fixed by

the mere expedient of cutting in half the assessmentmade by the City Treasurer and City Assessor or AACI forthat matter as of 1997. Such a process is arbitrary and agrave abuse of the trial courtsdiscretion.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/G.R.%20No.%20140091.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/G.R.%20No.%20140091.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/G.R.%20No.%20140091.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august2006/G.R.%20No.%20140091.htm


4/25

Tan vs. Republic,523 SCRA 203 [2007]

Section 2, Rule 67 (on Expropriation) of the sameRules provides, among others, that upon the filing ofthe complaint or at any time thereafter and after due

notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall have theright to take or enter upon the possession of the realproperty involved if he deposits with the authorizedgovernment depositary an amount equivalent to theassessed value of the property. It bears reiteratingthat in Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi,[17] we ruledthat just compensation is determined as of thedate of the taking of the property or the filing ofthe complaint, whichever came first.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/may2007/170740.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/may2007/170740.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/may2007/170740.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/may2007/170740.htm


5/25


6/25

Republic vs. Sarabia, GR. No. 157847, 2005

The value of the property should be fixed as of the date when itwas taken and not the date of the filing of the proceedings. Forwhere property is taken ahead of the filing of the condemnationproceedings, the value thereof may be enhanced by the public

purpose for which it is taken; the entry by the plaintiff upon theproperty may have depreciated its value thereby; or, there mayhave been a natural increase in the value of the property from thetime it is taken to the time the complaint is filed, due to generaleconomic conditions. The owner of private property should becompensated only for what he actually loses; it is not intended thathis compensation shall extend beyond his loss or injury. And what

he loses is only the actual value of his property at the time it istaken. This is the only way the compensation to be paid can betruly just; i.e., justnot only to the individual whose property istaken, butto the public, which is to pay for it


7/25

III.WHEN THE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BEEXPROPRIATED COINCIDES WITH THECOMMENCEMENT OF THE EXPROPRIATIONPROCEEDINGS, OR TAKES PLACE SUBSEQUENT TO THEFILING OF THE COMPLAINT FOR EMINENT DOMAIN,THE JUST COMPENSATION SHOULD BE DETERMINED

AS OF THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT;

City of Iloilo vs. Besana, 612 SCRA 458 (2010)


8/25

City of Iloilo vs. Besana, 612 SCRA 458 (2010)

When the taking of the property sought to beexpropriated coincides with the commencement of theexpropriation proceedings, or takes place subsequentto the filing of the complaint for eminent domain, thejust compensation should be determined as of the dateof the filing of the complaint.39

Even under Sec. 4, Rule 67 of the 1964 Rules of Procedure,under which the complaint for expropriation was filed, justcompensation is to be determined "as of the date of the

filing of the complaint." Here, there is no reason to departfrom the general rule that the point of reference forassessing the value of the Subject Property is the time ofthe filing of the complaint for expropriation.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168967_2010.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168967_2010.html


9/25

IV.BECAUSE OF EJECTMENT/RECOVERY OFPOSSESSION CASE, TRANSCO WAS CONSTRAINEDTO INSTITUTE EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS,PROVISIONAL DEPOSIT IS MADE UNDER RA 8974.

FINAL JUST COMPENSATION BEING INSISTED ONTIME OF TAKING RULE;

The general rule is determination of just compensation atthe time of filing. However, this admits of exceptions:


10/25

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:

GRAVE INJUSTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER(Heirs of Pidacan vs. Air Transportation Office,2007)

As a rule, the determination of just compensation ineminent domain cases is reckoned from the time oftaking.[14] In this case, however, application of the saidrule would lead to grave injustice. Xxx

xxx justice and fairness dictate that the appropriatereckoning point for the valuation of petitionersproperty is when the trial court made its order ofexpropriationin 2001
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/162779.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/162779.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/162779.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/162779.htm


11/25


THE TAKING DID NOT HAVE COLOR OF LEGALAUTHORITY (NPC vs. Lucman Ibrahim, et al., 2007)

xxx to allow petitioner to use the date it constructed the

tunnels as the date of valuation would be grossly unfair. First,it did not enter the land under warrant or color of legalauthority or with intent to expropriate the same.

xxxThe trial court, therefore, as affirmed by the CA, rightly

computed the valuation of the property as of 1992, whenrespondents discovered the construction of the hugeunderground tunnels beneath their lands and petitionerconfirmed the same and started negotiations for theirpurchase but no agreement could be reached.


12/25


THE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT INITIALLYFOR EXPROPRIATION(Tan vs. Republic, 2007)

when PEA entered petitionersland in 1985, it was not for the

purpose of expropriating it. We stress that after its entry, PEAwrote SADC requesting to donate or sell the land to thegovernment. Indeed, there was no intention on the part ofPEA to expropriate the subject property. xxx"

xxx The trial court, therefore, was correct in orderingrespondent, through PEA, upon the filing of its complaintfor expropriation, to pay petitioner just compensation onthe basis of the BIR zonal valuation of the subject propertyat P20,000.00 per square meter.


13/25


THE OWNER WILL BE GIVEN UNDUE INCREMENTADVANTAGES BECAUSE OF THE EXPROPRIATION(Provincial Government of Rizal vs. Araullo, 1933)

the owners of the land have no right to recover damagesfor this unearned increment resulting from theconstruction of the public improvement for which theland was taken. xxx"

xxx the property is to be considered in its conditionand situation at the time it is taken, and not asenhanced by the purpose for which it is taken.


14/25

ADDITIONAL EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE: (BASEDON CA DECISION IN TRANSCO VS. BERMUDA CASE

TIME OF TAKING IS THE TIME WHEN THELANDOWNER WAS DEPRIVED OF THE USE ANDBENEFIT OF HIS PROPERTY (TransCo vs. BermudaDevt. Corp. CA-GR No. 96092, Nov. 2011) Bermuda became the owner of the subject property only in

1992. It was only from this year up the present thatBERMUDAsproprietary rights over the subject property wasrestricted or limited due to TRANSCOscontinued utilizationof its transmission lines. Thus, the reckoning date for thedetermination of just compensation to be paid is 1992, xxxand not 1979 as it was only then the latter acquiredproprietary interest over the subject property. To claim justcompensation even prior to 1992 would amount to unjustenrichment on the part of BERMUDA which was not yet thenthe owner of the same.


15/25

End of Part 1


16/25


17/25

Republic vs. Mangotara, GR. No. 170375, 2010

The owner of the property is not anindispensable party in an action for

expropriation.

When the property already appears to belongto the Republic, there is no sense in theRepublic instituting expropriationproceedings against itself.


18/25

Curata vs. Philippine Ports Authority, GR. No. 154211-12, 2009

In Republic v. Gingoyon,[109]on the issue of how muchmust the government pay by way of initial deposit, theCourt, after positing the applicability of RA 8974 tothe expropriation of NAIA Passenger Terminal III(NAIA III), stated the observation that the appropriatestandard of just compensationinclusive of themanner of payment thereof and the initialcompensation to the lot ownersis a substantive, notmerely a procedural, matter.

In Lintag v. National Power Corporation,[110] wereiterated that RA 8974 is a substantive law thatcannot be applied retroactively


19/25

Tinio vs. NPC, GR. No. 160923, 2011

It is settled that the nature and character of the land at thetime of its taking is the principal criterion for determininghow much just compensation should be given to thelandowner.[10]

Hence, the argument of the Tinios that the subject propertyshould benefit from the subsequent classification of itsadjoining properties as industrial lands is, likewise,untenable. The Court, in a number of cases,[11] has

enunciated the principle that it would be injustice on thepart of the expropriator where the owner would be givenundue incremental advantages arising from the use to

which the government devotes the propertyexpropriated.[10]


20/25

NPC vs. Teresita Diato-Bernal, GR. No. 180979, 2010

It is evident that the above conclusions are highly speculative anddevoid of any actual and reliable basis. First, the market values ofthe subject propertys neighboring lots were mere estimates andunsupported by any corroborative documents, such as sworndeclarations of realtors in the area concerned, tax declarations or

zonal valuation from the Bureau of Internal Revenue for thecontiguous residential dwellings and commercial establishments.The report also failed to elaborate on how and by how much thecommunity centers and convenience facilities enhanced the valueof respondentsproperty.[23]Finally, the market sales data and pricelistings alluded to in the report were not even appended thereto.

As correctly invoked by NAPOCOR, a commissioners report ofland prices which is not based on any documentary evidence ismanifestly hearsay and should be disregarded by the court.[23]


21/25

NPC vs. Sps. Zabala, GR. No. 173520, 2013

It has likewise been our consistent ruling that justcompensation cannot be arrived at arbitrarily. Severalfactors must be considered, such as, but not limitedto, acquisition cost, current market value of likeproperties, tax value of the condemned property, itssize, shape, and location. But before these factors canbe considered and given weight, the same must besupported by documentary evidence.

In Republic v. Santos,29 we ruled that acommissioners land valuation which is not based onany documentary evidence is manifestly hearsay andshould be disregarded by the court,


22/25

NPC vs. Tuazon, et al, GR. No. 193023, 2011

In sum, we categorically hold that private land taken for theinstallation of transmission lines is to be paid the full market

value of the land as just compensation. We so ruled inNationalPower Corporation v. Benjamin Ong Co,[40]and we reiterate this

ruling today:

As earlier mentioned, Section 3A of R.A. No. 6395, as amended,substantially provides that properties which will be traversedby transmission lines will only be considered as easements and

just compensation for such right of way easement shall notexceed 10 percent of the market value. However, this Court hasrepeatedly ruled thatwhen petitioner takes private property toconstruct transmission lines, it is liable to pay the full market

value upon proper determination by the courts.


23/25

NPC vs. Heirs of Makabangkit Sangkay, GR. No. 165828, 2011

We rule that the prescriptive period provided under Section3(i) of Republic Act No. 6395 is applicable only to an action fordamages, and does not extend to an action to recover justcompensation like this case. Consequently, NPC cannotthereby bar the right of the Heirs of Macabangkit to recover

just compensation for their land.

The action to recover just compensation from the State or itsexpropriating agency differs from the action for damages. Theformer, also known as inverse condemnation, has the objective

to recover the value of property taken in fact by thegovernmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of thepower of eminent domain has been attempted by the takingagency.


24/25

Republic vs. Hon. Judge Samson-Tatad, GR. No. 187677, 2013

The sole issue in this case, i.e., whether or not the courtthat hears the expropriation case has also jurisdiction todetermine, in the same proceeding, the issue of ownershipof the land sought to be condemned, must be resolved in

the affirmative. That the court is empowered to entertainthe conflicting claims of ownership of the condemned orsought to be condemned property and adjudge the rightfulowner thereof, in the same expropriation case, is evidentfrom Section 9 of the Revised Rule 69, xxx

If at all, this situation is akin to ejectment cases in which a

court is temporarily authorized to determine ownership, ifonly to determine who is entitled to possession. This is notconclusive, and it remains open to challenge through properactions.


25/25

End of Part 2Thank You!

Reckoning Date of Valuation

Documents

Transcript of Reckoning Date of Valuation