GR 185124; (January, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 185124. January 25, 2012.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION (NIA), Petitioner, vs. RURAL BANK OF KABACAN, INC., LITTIE SARAH A. AGDEPPA, LEOSA NANETTE AGDEPPA and MARCELINO VIERNES, MARGARITA TABOADA, PORTIA CHARISMA RUTH ORTIZ, represented by LINA ERLINDA A. ORTIZ and MARIO ORTIZ, JUAN MAMAC and GLORIA MATAS, Respondents.
FACTS
The National Irrigation Administration (NIA), a government-owned-and-controlled corporation authorized to exercise eminent domain, filed a complaint for expropriation to acquire portions of three parcels of land (Lot Nos. 3080, 455, and 3039) totaling 14,497.91 square meters for the Malitubog-Maridagao Irrigation Project. The trial court (RTC) issued a writ of possession in favor of NIA and formed a committee to determine just compensation. The committee submitted reports recommending compensation based on a land value of ₱65 per square meter and specific values for improvements (gmelina trees, coconut trees, banana clumps). A subsequent report also included the value of earthfill (excavated soil) from the properties. The RTC adopted the committee’s findings in its Judgment, ordering NIA to pay compensation for the land, improvements, and the excavated soil. NIA appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), contesting the inclusion of the value of the excavated soil and the order to deliver payment intended for the Rural Bank of Kabacan to other parties. The CA affirmed the RTC Decision with modification, but the provided text cuts off before detailing the CA’s specific ruling on these issues.
ISSUE
The primary issues raised by NIA in its appeal, as indicated in the provided text, are: (1) whether the value of the excavated soil (earthfill) from the expropriated properties should be included in the computation of just compensation; and (2) the propriety of the trial court’s order to deliver payment intended for the registered owner (Rural Bank of Kabacan) to other defendants-intervenors.
RULING
The provided text ends before the Supreme Court’s ruling is presented. The case is a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the CA Decision. Therefore, the final ruling of the Supreme Court on the validity of including the value of excavated soil in just compensation and on the payment delivery order is not contained in the excerpt.