Herrera v. Auditor General
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Meliton Herrera owned a parcel of land in Quezon City, identified as Lot No. 1120. In 1934, the government took possession of a portion of this lot to widen the Pasong Tamo Road, which was later converted into Tandang Sora Avenue. Herrera, a landowner and taxpayer since 1934, voluntarily relinquished possession of his land for public use, expecting fair compensation. Despite continuous efforts to seek payment and settlement from the government, he received none. The government also lost his original title during the war, necessitating him to obtain a copy. Throughout this period, Herrera continued to pay the land taxes on the property. Procedural History: Herrera's persistent claims for payment began in 1951 with a letter to the District Engineer of Pasig, Rizal. This led to endorsements between various city and highway officials. In 1955, the Quezon City Engineer offered to pay Herrera the assessed value of the lot, which Herrera accepted. However, the Commissioner of Public Highways, citing opinions from the Auditor General and a Supreme Court decision in a similar case, suggested that the claim might have prescribed. The City Engineer then sought an opinion from the Auditor General regarding prescription on Torrens titles. The Auditor General, referencing previous opinions and a Supreme Court case, indicated that the claim should have been paid much earlier. Petitioner's counsel sought reconsideration, arguing the factual differences in Herrera's case, particularly the absence of a deed of transfer and the late agreement on price. Upon denial of reconsideration, the present petition for review was filed. The Petition: This case is a petition for review of the Auditor General's decision denying Meliton Herrera's claim for compensation for his land, which was taken by the government for road purposes. The petitioner argues that no sale of the land to the government ever occurred, as no deed of transfer was executed, and the title remains in his name. He further contends that an agreement on the price was only reached in 1955, negating the government's claim of prescription. The petitioner seeks payment for the lot, interest since 1934, reimbursement of land taxes paid, and attorney's fees, asserting that equity and law favor his claim against the government's refusal to compensate him for property it has occupied and taxed for decades without proper acquisition.
Issue(s)
Whether the claim for payment for the lot taken by the Government has prescribed. Whether the Government is liable to pay just compensation for the lot, despite the lapse of time and the absence of a deed of conveyance. Whether the assessed value is a reasonable compensation for the lot.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Government is directed to pay Meliton Herrera the sum of P1,230 for Lot No. 1120, upon his execution of the corresponding deed of conveyance in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. The Government shall bear all expenses incident to the execution of the deed, registration, etc. The Court suggested that the Government also pay interest since 1934 and reimburse land taxes paid by Herrera.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription: The Court held that the Government cannot invoke prescription to bar Herrera's claim. The land remained registered under Herrera's Torrens Title, and no deed of conveyance was ever executed in favor of the Government. Furthermore, the Government continued to collect and Herrera religiously paid real estate taxes on the lot, which is inconsistent with a transfer of ownership. The Court noted that while the Government often invokes prescription against citizens, it should not do so against its own citizens when it is the one in default. The acknowledgment of the obligation and the offer to pay by the Quezon City Engineer in 1955, which was accepted by Herrera, constituted a renewal of the obligation, negating prescription. On the liability to pay just compensation: The Court found that the law and equity favored Herrera. There was no agreement as to the price, nor a sale of the lot to the Government. Herrera's title remained clean, and had there been a sale, it would have been cancelled. The Court emphasized that the Government's possession of the lot for road purposes since 1934 without payment or conveyance necessitates payment of just compensation as mandated by the Constitution. The actions of the District Engineer, City Engineer, and City Attorney, who upheld Herrera's claim and recommended payment, further supported this. On the assessed value as compensation: The Court accepted the assessed value of P1,230 as the purchase price, as offered by the City Engineer and accepted by Herrera in 1955. While acknowledging that assessed value is usually lower than market value, the Court noted that Herrera, perhaps tired of waiting or in a spirit of cooperation, agreed to this amount. The Court suggested, in the interest of atonement for the injustice, that the Government also pay interest since 1934 and reimburse the land taxes paid by Herrera, considering the prolonged occupation without compensation and the illegal collection of taxes.
Main Doctrine
The Government cannot invoke prescription to avoid payment of just compensation for private property taken for public use, especially when no deed of conveyance has been executed and the property remains registered under the owner's Torrens Title, and the Government has continued to collect real estate taxes thereon.