Some Jurisprudence on

the Reckoning Date to Determine Just

Compensation(Culled from the OSG General Guidelines on Expropriation)

ITHE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY MUST BE DETERMINED EITHER AS OF THE DATE OF THE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY OR THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT WHICHEVER COMES FIRST;

Manansan vs. Republic, 498 SCRA 348 [2006]Tan vs. Republic, 523 SCRA 203 [2007]

Manansan vs. Republic, 498 SCRA 348 [2006]

“The rule is that the value of the property must be determined either as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever comes first.[22]  In this case, the complaint was filed on April 17, 1979, and the trial court issued the writ of possession on January 10, 1981.  The City Treasurer, City Assessor and the AACI based their assessment reports as of 1995 and not as of 1979 or a difference of 16 years. Indeed, the fair market value of the property in 1979 cannot be fixed by the mere expedient of cutting in half the assessment made by the City Treasurer and City Assessor or AACI for that matter as of 1997. Such a process is arbitrary and a grave abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”

Tan vs. Republic, 523 SCRA 203 [2007]

“Section 2, Rule 67 (on Expropriation) of the same Rules provides, among others, that upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter and after due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property.  It bears reiterating that in Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi,[17] we ruled that just compensation is determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.”

II.COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY EXPROPRIATED MUST BE DETERMINED AS OF THE TIME THE EXPROPRIATING AUTHORITY TAKES POSSESSION THEREOF AND NOT AS OF THE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS;

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

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

“The value of the property should be fixed as of the date when it was taken and not the date of the filing of the proceedings.   For where property is taken ahead of the filing of the condemnation proceedings, the value thereof may be enhanced by the public purpose for which it is taken; the entry by the plaintiff upon the property may have depreciated its value thereby; or, there may have been a natural increase in the value of the property from the time it is taken to the time the complaint is filed, due to general economic conditions.  The owner of private property should be compensated only for what he actually loses; it is not intended that his compensation shall extend beyond his loss or injury.  And what he loses is only the actual value of his property at the time it is taken.  This is the only way the compensation to be paid can be truly just; i.e., “just” not only to the individual whose property is taken, “but to the public, which is to pay for it””

III.WHEN THE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE EXPROPRIATED COINCIDES WITH THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS, OR TAKES PLACE SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING 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)

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

“When the taking of the property sought to be expropriated coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings, or takes place subsequent to the filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the just compensation should be determined as of the date of 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, just compensation is to be determined "as of the date of the filing of the complaint." Here, there is no reason to depart from the general rule that the point of reference for assessing the value of the Subject Property is the time of the filing of the complaint for expropriation.”

IV.BECAUSE OF EJECTMENT/RECOVERY OF POSSESSION CASE, TRANSCO WAS CONSTRAINED TO INSTITUTE EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS, PROVISIONAL DEPOSIT IS MADE UNDER RA 8974. FINAL JUST COMPENSATION BEING INSISTED ON TIME OF TAKING RULE;

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

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 in eminent domain cases is reckoned from the time of taking.[14] In this case, however, application of the said rule would lead to grave injustice. Xxx

“xxx justice and fairness dictate that the appropriate reckoning point for the valuation of petitioners’ property is when the trial court made its order of expropriation in 2001”

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:THE TAKING DID NOT HAVE COLOR OF LEGAL

AUTHORITY (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 legal authority or with intent to expropriate the same.”

“xxx The trial court, therefore, as affirmed by the CA, rightly computed the valuation of the property as of 1992, when respondents discovered the construction of the huge underground tunnels beneath their lands and petitioner confirmed the same and started negotiations for their purchase but no agreement could be reached.”

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:THE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT INITIALLY

FOR EXPROPRIATION(Tan vs. Republic, 2007) “when PEA entered petitioner’s land in 1985, it was not

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

“xxx The trial court, therefore, was correct in ordering respondent, through PEA, upon the filing of its complaint for expropriation, to pay petitioner just compensation on the basis of the BIR zonal valuation of the subject property at P20,000.00 per square meter.”

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:THE OWNER WILL BE GIVEN UNDUE

INCREMENT ADVANTAGES BECAUSE OF THE EXPROPRIATION (Provincial Government of Rizal vs. Araullo, 1933)“the owners of the land have no right to recover

damages for this unearned increment resulting from the construction of the public improvement for which the land was taken. xxx"

“xxx the property is to be considered in its condition and situation at the time it is taken, and not as enhanced by the purpose for which it is taken..”

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:THE OWNER WILL BE GIVEN UNDUE

INCREMENT ADVANTAGES BECAUSE OF THE EXPROPRIATION (Provincial Government of Rizal vs. Araullo, 1933)“the owners of the land have no right to recover

damages for this unearned increment resulting from the construction of the public improvement for which the land was taken. xxx"

“xxx the property is to be considered in its condition and situation at the time it is taken, and not as enhanced by the purpose for which it is taken..”

End of Part 1