Republic v. Bank of the Philippine Islands
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) filed an expropriation case against portions of properties owned by Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and Bayani Villanueva for the construction of the Zapote-Alabang Fly-Over. BPI's lot required 281 square meters and Villanueva's lot required 177 square meters. Procedural History: The trial court, based on the Commissioners' Report, set the just compensation for the land at ₱40,000.00 per square meter. The decision was promulgated on 25 November 1998. BPI filed a Motion for Partial New Trial on 16 December 1998 to determine the just compensation for its building, claiming it received the decision on 01 December 1998. The trial court granted this motion. After BPI presented evidence ex-parte, the trial court awarded ₱2,633,000.00 for the building on 10 September 1999. The trial court later set aside this decision on 14 February 2000 upon petitioner's motion for reconsideration, citing procedural defects. A new Board of Commissioners was constituted. One commissioner recommended ₱2,633,000.00 (based on appraisal), while another recommended ₱1,905,600.00 (based on tax declaration). The trial court, in an Order dated 03 February 2003, adopted the recommendation of ₱1,905,600.00 as just compensation for the building, considering it as consequential damage. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, represented by DPWH, appealed to the Court of Appeals, assailing the trial court's order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that BPI's motion for partial new trial was timely filed and that the award of consequential damages for the building was proper. The Supreme Court reviewed the case on petition for review.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court’s Decision dated 25 November 1998 had become final and executory before BPI filed its motion for partial new trial. Whether the award of additional just compensation for BPI’s building in the amount fixed therefor is unfounded and without legal basis.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' Decision, upholding the trial court's order granting additional just compensation for BPI's building.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether BPI’s motion for partial new trial was filed out of time: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that BPI's motion for partial new trial was timely filed. The period for filing a motion for new trial or appeal commences upon receipt of the judgment or final order. Crucially, there was no proof of service of the 25 November 1998 Decision upon BPI in the records. Therefore, the 15-day reglementary period did not begin to run against BPI. BPI's admission of receiving the decision on 01 December 1998 was considered the reckoning date, making its motion filed on 16 December 1998 timely. The certification of finality issued by the acting branch clerk of court was specific to the Office of the Solicitor General's failure to appeal, not BPI's receipt. On whether the award of additional just compensation for BPI’s building was unfounded and without legal basis: The Court held that the award of additional just compensation for the building, considered as consequential damages, was proper. The State's power of eminent domain requires just compensation, which includes not only the market value of the property taken but also consequential damages to the remaining property. No actual taking of the building was necessary to award consequential damages; impairment or decrease in the value of the remaining property due to the expropriation is sufficient. The Court noted that DPWH did not provide proof of communicating its amended plan (reducing sidewalk width) to BPI, and BPI relied on an earlier DPWH letter indicating the sidewalk width could not be adjusted. The construction of a new building and the demolition of the old one, as observed during an ocular inspection, further supported the finding of consequential damages. The Court found no cogent reason to deviate from the uniform findings of the lower courts on this matter.
Main Doctrine
The period for filing a motion for new trial or appeal commences only upon receipt of the judgment or final order. Absent proof of service, the period does not begin to run. Consequential damages may be awarded for the impairment or decrease in value of the remaining property as a result of expropriation, even if the building itself was not physically taken.