City of Cebu v. Spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, the City of Cebu, initiated an eminent domain proceeding to acquire two parcels of land owned by respondents, Spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo. The stated purpose was the construction of a public road to serve as an access and relief route for Gorordo Avenue, connecting to General Maxilum Avenue and the roads behind the Magellan International Hotel. The total area sought to be expropriated was 1,624 square meters. The respondents initially contested the expropriation, arguing that the purpose was not truly public but for the benefit of a private entity, Cebu Holdings, Inc., and that the offered price was significantly lower than that paid for neighboring properties. Procedural History: Following the filing of the eminent domain complaint, the trial court granted the petitioner's motion for a writ of possession, allowing immediate entry onto the property. Subsequently, the parties executed an agreement acknowledging the public purpose of the expropriation and agreeing to a provisional payment of P1,786,400.00, without prejudice to the final compensation to be determined by the court. The trial court appointed commissioners to assess the just compensation. After receiving the commissioners' report, the trial court rendered a decision on May 7, 1996, fixing the compensation at P24,865,930.00. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, pointing out an error in the commissioners' report regarding the area of Lot No. 1528. An amended assessment was submitted and approved, setting the just compensation at P20,826,339.50. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision. The Petition: The petitioner, City of Cebu, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision. The sole issue raised is whether just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint (September 17, 1993) or at the time of the actual taking of the property (1994). The petitioner argues, citing National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, that the valuation should be based on the filing date of the complaint. Respondents, in their comment, contend that the trial court's decision was based on the parties' agreement to be bound by the commissioners' report, that the petitioner is estopped from questioning the valuation due to its prior acquiescence, and that the determined compensation is not lower than the property's value at the time of taking. The Court ultimately ruled that R.A. No. 7160 mandates that just compensation be determined as of the time of actual taking, and that the parties' agreement to be bound by the commissioners' report was controlling.
Issue(s)
Whether just compensation in an eminent domain case should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint or the time of actual taking. Whether the petitioner is estopped from questioning the commissioners' report and the resulting valuation.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in affirming the decision of the trial court. The amount of just compensation fixed by the trial court is upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint or the time of actual taking: The Court reiterated that Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160 expressly provides that just compensation shall be determined as of the time of actual taking of the property. The Court clarified that its ruling in National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals did not categorically state that just compensation should be determined as of the filing of the complaint, but rather admitted an exception where the value was fixed as of the date of taking. Furthermore, the trial court followed Section 5 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, which allows for the appointment of commissioners to ascertain just compensation. The Court emphasized that the parties' solemn agreement to be bound by the commissioners' report, approved by the trial court, is a contract that has the force of law between them and must be complied with in good faith, as per Articles 1159 and 1315 of the Civil Code. This agreement supersedes the general rule under Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, which provides for determination as of the filing of the complaint, as R.A. 7160 is a substantive law. On whether the petitioner is estopped from questioning the commissioners' report and the resulting valuation: The Court held that the petitioner is estopped from questioning the valuation. The records show that the petitioner consented to conform with the valuation recommended by the commissioners. During the hearing on November 22, 1996, the petitioner did not interpose a serious objection. Therefore, it is too late for the petitioner to assail the correctness of the commissioners' assessment without violating the principle of equitable estoppel. Estoppel in pais applies when a party, by silence when they ought to speak, induces another to believe certain facts and the other party rightfully relies on such belief to their prejudice if the first party is permitted to deny those facts. The petitioner's actions and silence led the respondents to believe the valuation would be accepted, and they would be prejudiced if the petitioner were now allowed to contest it.
Main Doctrine
In eminent domain cases, just compensation shall be determined as of the time of the actual taking of the property, as provided by Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160, and not necessarily as of the date of the filing of the complaint, especially when the parties have agreed to be bound by the commissioners' report.