GR 146062; (June, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146062, June 28, 2001
SANTIAGO ESLABAN, JR., in his capacity as Project Manager of the National Irrigation Administration, petitioner, vs. CLARITA VDA. DE ONORIO, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Clarita Vda. de Onorio is the owner of a 39,512-square-meter lot in South Cotabato, covered by TCT No. T-22121. On October 6, 1981, petitioner Santiago Eslaban, Jr., as Project Manager of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), approved the construction of an NIA main irrigation canal on a 24,660-square-meter portion of the lot. Respondent’s husband agreed, provided payment would be made after processing by the Commission on Audit. In 1983, a Right-of-Way agreement was executed, and NIA paid respondent P4,180.00 as Right-of-Way damages. Respondent also executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights and Fees concerning damages to crops and improvements. NIA later offered P35,000.00 as amicable settlement per Executive Order No. 1035. Respondent demanded payment, but petitioner refused. Respondent filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for just compensation. The RTC ordered NIA to pay P107,517.60. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petition is dismissible for failure to comply with Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure regarding certification against forum shopping.
2. Whether land granted by virtue of a homestead patent and subsequently registered under Presidential Decree No. 1529 ceases to be part of the public domain.
3. Whether the value of just compensation shall be determined from the time of the taking or from the time of the finality of the decision.
4. Whether the Affidavit of Waiver of Rights and Fees executed by respondent exempts petitioner from making payment.
RULING
1. Yes, the petition is dismissible for failure to comply with the certification against forum shopping requirement. The petition was filed by Santiago Eslaban, Jr., but the verification and certification were signed by Cesar E. Gonzales, the NIA administrator. Neither signatory was shown to be duly authorized by a board resolution of the NIA, a body corporate. A certification signed by counsel alone or by an unauthorized person is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal.
2. Yes, the land ceases to be part of the public domain. The land was originally covered by a homestead patent granted in 1960 and was subsequently registered under the Torrens system. Once public lands are alienated, granted, and a certificate of title is issued, they become registered lands, and the title is as conclusive and indefeasible as any other. The Solicitor-General’s contention that an encumbrance exists under Section 44 of P.D. No. 1529 (formerly Section 39 of the Land Registration Act) for a government irrigation canal is inapplicable. That provision applies only if the certificate of title does not state that the boundaries of such canal have been determined. Here, the title was silent on any irrigation canal, and the canal was constructed only in 1981, long after the title was issued in 1976. Therefore, the government must pay just compensation for the taking.
3. Just compensation should be determined as of the time of the taking. The Court has consistently held that where property is taken ahead of payment, just compensation is the market value at the time of the taking. Interest is also due from the time of taking until payment to compensate for the delay.
4. No, the Affidavit of Waiver does not exempt petitioner from paying just compensation for the land. The waiver pertained only to damages to crops and improvements, not to the value of the land itself. This interpretation is supported by the contemporaneous acts of the parties, including the payment of P4,180.00 for right-of-way damages and the offer of P35,000.00 as financial assistance for the land.
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals decision with MODIFICATION, ordering payment of just compensation at P16,047.61 per hectare, with legal interest of 6% per annum from the time of taking until full payment. Costs against petitioner.