SC Excludes Value of Excavated Soil from Just Compensation Award
sc.judiciary.gov.ph
In a 17-page decision penned by Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, the Court’s Second Division, partially granting the petition, affirmed the Court of Appeals’ August 12, 2008 decision awarding just compensation to the defendants as owners of the expropriated properties and deleting the inclusion of the value of the excavated soil. However, the Court remanded the case to the Kabacan, Cotabato Regional Trial Court, Branch 22 for the reception of evidence to establish the present owner of Lot No. 3080, one of the three expropriated parcels of land.
The Court upheld the CA ruling which had deleted the inclusion of the value of the excavated soil in the payment for just compensation. It held that there was no legal basis to separate the value of the excavated soil from that of the expropriated properties as the soil has no value separate from that of the expropriated land. It ruled that “Just compensation ordinarily refers to the value of the land to compensate for what the owner actually loses. Such value could only be that which prevailed at the time of the taking.”
The Court also affirmed the appellate court’s ruling that the commissioners properly determined the just compensation to be awarded to the landowners whose properties were expropriated by petitioner.
It found that court records established that the RTC dutifully followed the procedure under Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure when it formed a committee that was tasked to determine the just compensation for the expropriated properties. The committee members based their recommendations on reliable data and, as aptly noted by the appellate court, considered various factors that affected the value of the land and the improvements.
However, the Court held that the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the trial court, which had awarded the payment of just compensation – intended for Lot No. 3080 registered in the name of the Rural Bank of Kabacan – to the defendants-intervenors on the basis of the non-participation of the rural bank in the proceedings and the latter’s subsequent Manifestation that it was no longer the owner of that lot. The Court said that it has “scrupulously examined the records of the case and found no proof of conveyance or evidence of transfer of ownership of Lot No. 3080 from its registered owner, the Rural Bank of Kabacan, to defendants-intervenors [Margarita Tabaoda, et al].” Thus, the Court remanded case to the trial court for the reception of evidence to establish the present owner of Lot No. 3080 who will be entitled to receive the payment of just compensation.
In 1994, NIA, a government-owned-and-controlled corporation primarily responsible for irrigation development and management in the country, NIA filed with the RTC a complaint for the expropriation of a portion of three parcels of land (Lot No. 3080, Lot No. 455, and Lot No. 3039) covering a total of 14,497.91 square meters, which it needed for the construction the Malitubog-Marigadao Irrigation Project.
The RTC promulgated its judgment on August 31, 1999 which fixed the just compensation for the value of the land and improvements thereon that were expropriated by petitioner, but included the value of the excavated soil. On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC’s ruling prompting the government, through NIA, to elevate the case to the High Court. (GR No. 185124, Republic v. Rural Bank of Kabacan, Inc., January 25, 2012)
Emphasis and links provided
by Broker Rem Ramirez 0922.883.9308 broker.ramirez@yahoo.com.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment