Republic v. Sarabia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Air Transportation Office (ATO) took possession of a 4,901 square-meter portion of Lot 6068 in 1956 for public use, including an airport parking area, control tower, crash fire rescue station, airport terminal, and PNP Aviation Security headquarters. In 1995, structures were built on an area outside the ATO's initial occupation. The private respondents, heirs of the late Segundo De la Cruz, filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession with Damages in 1997. The ATO intervened, claiming the occupants of the new structures were its lessees. Despite assurances of fair market value payment, parties failed to agree on compensation. Procedural History: On June 25, 1998, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by ATO, filed an expropriation case for the entire Lot 6068. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) appointed commissioners who recommended P800.00 per square meter for the 4,901 sq. m. portion and P500.00 per sq. m. for the remaining 5,567 sq. m. The RTC, however, declared that only the 4,901 sq. m. portion was needed for public use and fixed just compensation at P800.00 per square meter, based on the market value at the time of the issuance of the writ of possession (November 11, 1999), citing Republic vs. Honorable Lucerito Tagle, et al. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. The Petition: The Republic filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the CA decision which affirmed the RTC's fixing of just compensation based on the market value at the time of the issuance of the writ of possession, instead of the time of actual taking.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's decision fixing the just compensation based on the market value at the time of the issuance of the writ of possession. Whether the taking of the 4,901 square-meter portion of Lot 6068 occurred in 1956.
Ruling
The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The November 18, 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED in the sense that the computation of just compensation for the 4,901 square-meter portion of Lot 6068 should be based on its fair market value in 1956.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of when just compensation should be fixed: The Court ruled that just compensation for the expropriated property must be fixed at the time of the actual taking of possession by the expropriating authority, not at the time of the institution of the expropriation proceedings or the issuance of the writ of possession. The Court emphasized that the value of the property should be determined as of the time the government took possession thereof. This is because the owner should be compensated only for what he actually loses, which is the actual value of his property at the time it is taken. The Court cited a long line of cases, including Republic vs. Lara, et al. and Jose Ma. Ansaldo vs. Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr. and Baltazar Aquino, which consistently held that when the expropriating agency takes over the property prior to the expropriation suit, the just compensation shall be determined as of the time of taking. The Court clarified that the provision of Rule 69, Section 3, directing that compensation be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint, would only be operative when the taking of the property coincides with or is subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. The Court disagreed with the petitioner's assertion that the just compensation for the entire Lot 6068 should be fixed based on its assessed value in 1956, noting that there was no proof that the remaining 5,567 square-meter portion was occupied or needed for public use. On the issue of when the taking occurred: The Court held that the taking of the 4,901 square-meter portion of Lot 6068 occurred in 1956. This was established by the judicial admissions of the private respondents in their Answer and Pre-Trial Brief. Specifically, respondents admitted that the portion of land sought to be expropriated, with an area of 4,901 square meters, had been in the possession of the plaintiff (ATO) since 1956 up to the present. Paragraph 6 of the complaint, which was admitted by the respondents, further detailed the ATO's possession and control since 1956 and its initial use as a parking area, with several structures erected thereon. These admissions are conclusive and do not require further proof. The Court reiterated that a judicial admission is made by a party in the course of the proceedings for the truth of an alleged fact and cannot be disproved thereafter. The Court found that the appellate court erred in finding a want of evidence on the fact of petitioner's taking possession in 1956, given these clear admissions.
Main Doctrine
The just compensation for expropriated property shall be fixed at the fair market value at the time of the actual taking of possession by the expropriating authority, not at the time of the institution of the expropriation proceedings or the issuance of the writ of possession.