G.R. No. 161656; June 29, 2005
Republic of the Philippines, et al. vs. Vicente G. Lim

FACTS

In 1938, the Republic instituted expropriation proceedings over two lots in Cebu for a military reservation. In 1940, the Court of First Instance (CFI) ordered the Republic to pay the owners, the Denzons, the sum of ₱4,062.10 as just compensation. The judgment became final in 1948. Despite the Republic taking possession after depositing ₱9,500.00, no payment was made to the owners, and the records of the deposit were lost. In 1961, the Denzons’ successors-in-interest filed an action for recovery of possession. The CFI ruled they remained the registered owners due to non-payment but ordered them to execute a deed of sale upon payment of an adjusted value. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1966, which held the owners could only demand payment, not recover possession.
Decades later, the Republic still had not paid. The successors-in-interest assigned their rights to respondent Vicente Lim. In 2001, Lim filed a motion for execution to compel payment in the original 1938 expropriation case. The trial court granted it, ordering payment of the 1940 value plus 12% interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Republic appealed, arguing the motion was a prohibited revival of a judgment rendered over 60 years prior.

ISSUE

Whether a motion for execution to enforce payment of just compensation in an expropriation case is proper despite the lapse of over five years from the finality of the judgment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the Republic’s petition and affirmed the orders for execution. The Court held that the obligation to pay just compensation in expropriation cases is a continuing duty that does not prescribe. The five-year period for executing a judgment by motion under the Rules of Court is not applicable. Expropriation is an inherent state power, but the correlative duty to pay is mandated by the Constitution. The State’s failure to pay constitutes a gross injustice.
The 1966 Supreme Court Decision already definitively ruled that the owners’ right to payment subsisted. That decision became the law of the case. The subsequent motion for execution was not an action to revive a dormant judgment but a mere enforcement of a persistent and unpaid constitutional obligation. The State cannot invoke laches or prescription against itself to evade its duty. To hold otherwise would permit the State to confiscate property without compensation, which is abhorrent to justice and the Bill of Rights. The long delay of 57 years only magnified the injustice, warranting the immediate execution of the long-overdue payment.