GR 140377; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140377; July 14, 2008
PATRICIA L. TIONGSON, SPS. EDUARDO GO and PACITA GO, ROBERTO LAPERAL III, ELISA MANOTOK, MIGUEL A.B. SISON, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent National Housing Authority (NHA) took possession of petitioners’ properties in 1978 pursuant to Presidential Decrees Nos. 1669 and 1670. However, in a 1987 decision in G.R. Nos. L-55166 and 55167, the Supreme Court declared these decrees unconstitutional and void for violating due process, a ruling that became final and executory. Subsequently, on September 14, 1987, NHA filed a complaint for expropriation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila concerning the same properties. In its petition, NHA explicitly alleged it had taken possession under the void decree and prayed for an order authorizing it to “enter or take possession.”
The RTC, in an Order dated April 29, 1997, ruled that just compensation should be reckoned from the date of the filing of the complaint in 1987. NHA moved for reconsideration, contending compensation should be based on the 1978 taking. The RTC denied this motion. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, holding that just compensation should be based on the “actual taking of the property in 1978.”
ISSUE
From what date should just compensation for the expropriated properties be reckoned: the date of actual taking in 1978 or the date of the filing of the complaint in 1987?
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals and REINSTATED the RTC’s Order, ruling that just compensation must be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint on September 14, 1987.
The legal logic is anchored on Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, which provides that just compensation is to be determined “as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.” Crucially, the Court emphasized that the NHA’s initial taking in 1978 was effected under presidential decrees later declared unconstitutional. This unlawful taking could not be considered the valid “taking” contemplated by the rules for reckoning compensation. The Court found decisive the NHA’s own judicial admissions in its 1987 complaint, wherein it acknowledged the unconstitutionality of its prior possession and, in its prayer, sought authority from the court to “enter or take possession.” This pleading demonstrated that the NHA itself was treating the 1987 filing as the initiation of legitimate expropriation proceedings. Therefore, since the 1978 taking was void ab initio, the valid triggering event was the filing of the complaint in 1987. Consequently, under Rule 67, Section 4, the “filing of the complaint” was the operative date, and just compensation must be computed based on property values as of that time.