G.R. No. 216723. March 09, 2022.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), PETITIONER, VS. PACITA VILLAO AND CARMIENETT JAVIER, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
On March 18, 2004, the Republic, through the DPWH, filed a complaint for expropriation of a 550-square meter parcel of land in Kawit, Cavite, owned by Pacita Villao, for the Manila-Cavite Tollways Expressway Project. Carmienett Javier was later impleaded as the owner of improvements on the land. The petitioner deposited an initial payment based on BIR zonal valuation. The RTC granted a writ of possession and allowed the respondents to withdraw the deposit. A Board of Commissioners (BOC) was created to determine just compensation. The BOC recommended a valuation of P9,000.00 per square meter, heavily relying on a prior RTC decision in a different case (Republic v. Tapawan) involving a nearby property. The RTC adopted this recommendation, ordering the petitioner to pay an additional P3,905,000.00 with legal interest from the taking of the property. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The petitioner assails the CA decision, arguing the Commissioners’ Report is hearsay, lacks documentary support, improperly relies on a non-precedential valuation from another case, and is based on a “current market offering” rather than the value at the time of the complaint’s filing.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s determination of just compensation at P9,000.00 per square meter based on the Board of Commissioners’ Report.
RULING
Yes. The Petition is meritorious. The Court found that the determination of just compensation was not supported by competent evidence. The Commissioners’ Report, which served as the primary basis for the valuation, was hearsay as it lacked supporting documentary evidence such as sworn statements, tax declarations, or authenticated sales data. Its heavy reliance on the valuation in the unrelated Tapawan case was improper, as just compensation must be determined on a case-to-case basis. Furthermore, the recommended value appeared to be based on a “current market offering” and not the fair market value at the time of the filing of the expropriation complaint in March 2004, as required by law and jurisprudence. Consequently, the case is remanded to the court of origin for the proper reception of evidence and determination of just compensation in accordance with Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8974 and relevant jurisprudence. Legal interest shall be imposed on the final determined amount, at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of taking in 2004 until June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013, until the finality of the decision fixing just compensation. Thereafter, the total amount shall earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum until full payment.