G.R. No. L-10259; January 26, 1916
THE CITY OF MANILA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALICE J. NEAL, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The City of Manila initiated expropriation proceedings to acquire an entire parcel of land for use in connection with a public park. The land, located near the corner of Real and Vito Cruz Streets, had a frontage of 8.49 meters on Vito Cruz and a depth of 122.08 meters. It was irregular in shape, partially below street grade, and unimproved except for three trees. Commissioners were appointed to determine just compensation. They submitted two reports: a majority report valuing the front 40-meter portion at P2.00 per square meter and the remaining interior at P1.00 per square meter, and a dissenting report valuing the same portions at P2.50 and P1.50, respectively. The trial court confirmed the majority report. The landowners appealed, contesting the valuation.

ISSUE:
Whether the Supreme Court can review and disturb the award of just compensation fixed by the commissioners and confirmed by the trial court.

RULING:
No, the award is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the valuation in the majority report, confirmed by the trial court, was supported by the evidence and should not be disturbed on appeal. The Court found no error in the trial court’s consideration of comparable sales of properties approximately 300 meters away, as the admission of such evidence is largely discretionary and the properties were in a similar outskirt area where values are not highly localized. The Court also agreed with the majority commissioners’ consideration that the dissenting commissioner and the expert witness, Sellner, failed to account for the significant cost of filling and raising the condemned land to street gradea condition attached to the expert’s higher valuation. Following the doctrine in Manila Railroad Co. vs. Velasquez, the Court accorded great weight to the commissioners’ report and found no justification to alter it. The judgment was affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

Separate Opinion (Moreland, J., concurring in result):
Justice Moreland concurred in the affirmance but dissented from the majority’s review of the evidence. He argued that, based on the certified bill of exceptions, the appellants failed to lay the proper foundation for appellate review. Specifically, they did not show that they had objected to the commissioners’ report, opposed its confirmation, taken an exception to the order of confirmation, or moved for a new trial in the court below. Citing City of Manila vs. Batlle, he argued that when parties do not properly challenge the report below, the trial court’s duty is simply to confirm it, and no question is presented for review on appeal except whether the judgment conforms to the report. Therefore, he believed the Court should affirm without examining the sufficiency of the evidence.