GR 142971; (May, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142971 . May 7, 2002.
THE CITY OF CEBU, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES APOLONIO and BLASA DEDAMO, respondents.
FACTS
The City of Cebu filed a complaint for eminent domain to expropriate portions of the respondents’ lots for the construction of a public access road. The respondents initially contested the taking, arguing it primarily benefited a private entity and offered low compensation. However, the parties subsequently entered into an Agreement wherein the respondents conceded to the expropriation for a public purpose, agreed to receive a provisional payment of P1,786,400, and, crucially, jointly petitioned the court to render judgment in accordance with their agreement. They stipulated that a supplemental judgment would later fix the final just compensation based on the report of court-appointed commissioners.
Pursuant to this Agreement, the trial court appointed commissioners. After evaluating their report, the court rendered a decision directing the City to pay the respondents P24,865,930 as just compensation. The City moved for reconsideration, challenging the valuation. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision which adopted the commissioners’ valuation of the expropriated property.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed judgment. The Court held that the petitioner City is bound by the Agreement it voluntarily entered into with the respondents. This Agreement constituted a contract between the parties, and obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between them and must be complied with in good faith under Articles 1159 and 1315 of the Civil Code. By the terms of the Agreement, the parties jointly petitioned the court to render judgment and agreed that just compensation would be determined based on the commissioners’ report. Having consented to this procedure and having failed to interpose a serious objection to the commissioners’ findings during the hearings, the City is now estopped from assailing the valuation. The principle of estoppel prevents a party from denying facts it has previously admitted or acquiesced to, to the prejudice of the other party who relied thereon. Consequently, the City cannot renege on its contractual undertaking and challenge the correctness of the commissioners’ assessment, which formed the basis of the final compensation awarded by the trial court.